Tina Peters plans Supreme Court bid while convictions are upheld in Colorado
I keep coming back to the oddness of it: the person whose job was to run the election is the one accused of breaking into the machinery that counts the votes. Colorado's courts have now upheld her convictions, and the next stop is a Supreme Court that takes very few cases. Ticktin hasn't said what specific legal grounds he'll argue, and that matters, because the court usually only steps in when there's a clear constitutional question or a split among lower courts.
I'd want to know what the defense thinks went wrong at trial. Whether evidence was improperly excluded, whether the jury instructions were flawed, whether the charges themselves overreached. Those are the kinds of details that could make this more than a political spectacle. Without one of those hooks, the petition is a long shot.
Where I land: appeals courts don't overturn convictions lightly, and two rounds of review have already gone against Peters. But the Supreme Court exists for cases that test the limits of how we run elections, and this one sits right at that line. I'll be watching to see if they take it, and if they do, the arguments will tell us a lot about where our election disputes are heading.