Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Tina Peters v. U.S. and Rubinstein
Tina Peters is the former Mesa County clerk in charge of elections. While serving as a clerk, she arranged for a consultant to enter a secured area of the clerk’s office and to copy county voting records. She gave the copies to experts to analyze. Based on the experts’ analysis, Peters concluded the county’s voting system had vulnerabilities and petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to stop using its system. Federal, state and local law enforcement searched her home.
On March 8, 2022, a state grand jury indicted her on 10 criminal counts. On May 5, 2022, Daniel Rubinstein, the district attorney for Mesa County, Colorado, moved to quash a subpoena duces tecum that Peters had sent him requesting certain physical evidence related to the county’s voting system.
On May 12, 2022, Peters moved for review of the grand jury indictment to determine whether probable cause supported the charges against her.
On June 3, 2022, the state court held that probable cause supported each of the charges in the indictment. On June 5, 2022, the state court granted the motion to quash.
On April 1, 2024, Peters moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing she was immune from prosecution under the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the United States Constitution. On May 7, 2024, the state court denied her motion.
On Nov. 14, 2023, Peters sued Rubinstein in his official capacity. She brought a First Amendment retaliation claim, alleging Rubinstein’s investigation and prosecution were in retaliation for her public criticism of the county’s voting system. She sought declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to prevent Rubinstein from investigating and prosecuting her in state court.
On Nov. 27, 2023, Peters moved the district court for a preliminary injunction to stop Rubinstein from “conducting, continuing, or participating in any way in proceedings in [the state court case], or any other criminal proceedings against harassment of Peters.”
On Dec. 13, 2023, Rubinstein responded by moving to dismiss the case, arguing for the district court to abstain, including the request for a preliminary injunction.
On Jan. 8, the district court granted Rubinstein’s motion, holding that abstention was appropriate and denying the preliminary injunction as moot. The district court dismissed the claim against Rubinstein without prejudice and entered judgment for Rubinstein.
Peters appealed. Peters moved the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to enjoin the state court proceeding pending appeal. It denied the motion. On May 24, Peters moved the 10th Circuit to expedite the appeal.
The 10th Circuit found the Younger v. Harris abstention of the district court was appropriate, and Peters hasn’t met her heavy burden to show the bad faith exception applies. The 10th Circuit affirmed and denied Peters’ motion to expedite as moot.