Notorious election-denying podcaster joins Trump battle to release Tina Peters from CO prison

A failed Ohio secretary of state candidate backed Tina Peters’ release from prison in a proposed amicus brief filed in federal court in Colorado over the weekend.

In the filing, lawyers for Terpsehore Maras argue that a denial of bail for Peters violates the former Mesa County clerk and recorder’s First Amendment rights and would be an uneven application of Colorado’s bail standards.

“Denying bail to a non-violent defendant with a pending appeal — where state law permits release — serves no legitimate purpose and operates solely as punishment. That result is compounded here by the state’s indifference to Ms. Peters’ health, turning confinement into cruelty,” the filing says.

Earlier this year, Peters, 70, submitted a petition to get a federal court to free her on bond while she appeals her state-level conviction that stems from her scheme to allow an unauthorized person access to her county’s Dominion Voting Systems machines in 2021. She was sentenced to nine years in prison and is currently incarcerated at a medium-security facility in Pueblo.

Peters, a Republican, espoused debunked claims about election security and voter fraud after former President Joe Biden won the 2020 election.

During a hearing in July on Peters’ habeas corpus petition, Chief Magistrate Judge Scott Varholak said he could not find a precedent where a federal court granted habeas — or release — on an appeal bond.

Maras — who is also an election denier, podcaster and QAnon supporter — argued in her brief that the bond denial was a punishment for Peters’ statements about election systems rather than a decision to protect the community.

“Colorado law permits bail pending appeal when a defendant is not a flight risk or danger to society. While the decision to grant bail is discretionary, that discretion cannot be exercised in a way that infringes upon constitutional rights. Here, the trial judge’s own words reveal that bail was denied not to ensure appearance or protect the public, but to punish and silence Ms. Peters,” the brief says.

Maras claims the decision would violate Peters’ rights under the First, Eighth, Ninth and 14th Amendments.

“If allowed to stand, this ruling establishes a precedent that bail may be weaponized to silence dissent, chill public discourse, and punish citizens critical of government conduct. That is not the purpose of bail, nor the role of courts in a constitutional democracy,” the brief says.

The brief asserts that, in addition to Maras, there are 3,057 signatories to it whose names lawyers could make available to the court. Anyone can propose an amicus brief, though they are not automatically accepted.

The Colorado attorney general’s office has asked for the habeas corpus petition to be dismissed because federal court does not have jurisdiction in the state-level case. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has called for Peters’ release multiple times.

On Sept. 17, Varholak gave parties in the petition case two weeks to address the merits of Peters’ habeas petition on First Amendment grounds.