By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Colorado Democrats have censured Governor Jared Polis for commuting the sentence of Tina Peters, a former county clerk convicted of election tampering. The party stated that reducing Peters’ sentence, especially under pressure from former President Trump, undermines justice and sets a dangerous precedent. Polis’s decision to shorten Peters’ nine-year sentence to make her eligible for parole was met with widespread backlash from fellow Democrats who argued it disregarded the party’s values and democratic commitments.
Read the original article here
Colorado Democrats have formally censured Governor Jared Polis for his decision to commute the sentence of a woman convicted of serious election interference. This move by the state party signifies a strong disapproval of the governor’s action, highlighting a significant rift within the party itself. The core of the controversy lies in Polis’s decision to reduce the sentence of an individual found guilty of actions that undermined the integrity of the electoral process.
The justification for the censure stems from the perception that Governor Polis overstepped his authority, or at least made a deeply questionable judgment call. The argument is that the sentence was already subject to judicial review, and it wasn’t the governor’s place to unilaterally decide it was too harsh. This suggests a feeling that Polis bypassed established legal processes and made a personal determination that was inappropriate for his office, especially given the gravity of the conviction.
Furthermore, there’s a sentiment that the governor’s action sends a dangerous message. Critics argue that by commuting the sentence of someone who tampered with voting machines and obstructed justice, Polis is essentially emboldening those who seek to undermine democratic institutions. This, in turn, is seen as a failure to hold accountable those who commit what are considered treasonous acts against the country, particularly in an era where election denial remains a potent political force.
The conviction itself is described in detail, emphasizing that it went far beyond mere “election denial.” The individual in question was found guilty of turning off security cameras, using her security card to grant access to voting machines, and attempting to conceal her actions. These are serious felonies involving conspiracy, official misconduct, and violations of election duties, leading to a nine-year sentence. The commutation, therefore, is viewed by many as a reward for egregious behavior that threatens the foundation of elections.
There’s a palpable frustration that such actions, which are perceived as criminal and deeply damaging to democracy, are not being met with unwavering condemnation and strict enforcement of sentences. The censure is seen by some as a necessary step to signal that such behavior will not be tolerated, even if it doesn’t reverse the governor’s decision. The hope is that this public disapproval will serve as a deterrent and a statement of principle.
Some within the Democratic party are going even further, calling for the impeachment of Governor Polis. The argument here is that a censure is too weak a response and that more drastic action is needed to demonstrate the party’s commitment to upholding democratic norms. The idea is that even if Polis is nearing the end of his term, the precedent of holding powerful figures accountable for actions that erode public trust in elections must be set.
The political implications of this decision are also a significant point of discussion. By commuting the sentence of an election denier, Polis is seen by many as having effectively ended his own political career within the Democratic party. It’s considered a politically “stupid” move, particularly if he was hoping to advance his career further. The fact that he thought this decision might somehow be a career-advancing move is viewed as particularly misguided and out of touch with the party’s base.
There’s also a deep suspicion surrounding the governor’s motives, with suggestions of bribery or some form of coercion. The lack of a clear, satisfactory explanation from Polis for his decision leads many to believe that he was influenced by illicit means. The idea of a “Trump bribery fund” or a “Jan 6th slush fund” is mentioned as a potential source of influence, reflecting a broader distrust of political actors who make decisions that seem to benefit those who have challenged democratic outcomes.
Some commentators note that Polis has historically been seen as a “centrist” Democrat, and this action is perceived as aligning more with Republican strategies of downplaying election integrity concerns. This has led to frustration among those who feel that the Democratic party is being diluted by “centrists” who are essentially conservatives in disguise. The fear is that this kind of compromise erodes the party’s core principles and allows for the normalization of problematic behaviors.
While the censure is a formal acknowledgement of the party’s disapproval, many believe it’s insufficient. The focus shifts to tangible actions, such as auditing the governor’s finances and travel, to uncover any potential hidden motives or influences. The underlying sentiment is that justice has not been fully served, as the individual convicted of election interference is no longer serving their full sentence.
The debate also touches on the fundamental principles of governance. The idea that governing should be about the “will of the people” and not personal agendas is put forth. When political leaders make decisions that are seen as going against the perceived will of the electorate, or that undermine the systems that represent that will, it leads to significant backlash.
The distinction between “election denier” and the actual conviction is also highlighted. While some may use the term “election denier” as a shorthand, the legal convictions were for specific acts of influencing public servants, conspiracy, official misconduct, and violating election duties. This nuance is important for understanding the severity of the crimes committed and why the commutation is so controversial.
Ultimately, the censure of Governor Polis by Colorado Democrats is a clear indication of a profound disagreement over the handling of a serious case of election interference. It reflects a deep concern for the integrity of democratic processes and a frustration with perceived leniency towards those who actively seek to undermine them. The incident serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing battles to protect electoral systems and the internal divisions that can arise within political parties over how best to achieve that goal.