DENVER — Two lawyers said after recommending Colorado Governor Jared Polis deny Tina Peters clemency, their choice to speak publicly about him ignoring the guidance got them terminated from the clemency advisory board on Wednesday.
According to the termination letter obtained by Denver7, the two members of Polis' Executive Clemency Advisory Board were removed due to a breach of confidentiality.
After Polis commuted Peters’ nine-year sentence, board members Hannah Seigel Proff and Azra Taslimi revealed the board had unanimously voted — twice — to reject Peters’ application for a shorter sentence.
"I think we decided ultimately to speak out on this particular application because of the inconsistencies within how it was handled," Taslimi said.
In mid-June, after Peters’ release from prison, the two attorneys penned an opinion piece in the Denver Post, saying Polis' decision reflected a troubling problem.
A statement from a spokesperson with Polis' office said, in part, "publicly disclosing board recommendations and how members vote on any case threatens the credibility of the board."
However, Proff and Taslimi believe the public had a right to know what happened behind closed doors in this case.
"Miss Peters got to cut the line," Taslimi said. “She was granted favor in a way that no one else does, and that is unequal justice, and that's why we spoke out.”
The governor’s decision to commute Peters’ sentence comes after a Colorado Court of Appeals judge ruled in April her original sentence should be thrown out because her conviction was based, in part, on improper consideration for Peters’ right to free speech.
"Once the court decision came down, I sort of breathed a sigh of relief. I thought, 'This is taken off the clemency board's docket,'" Proff said. “Many of us who were following the issue closely thought that once the Court of Appeals acted, that he [Polis] would stand down and let the judicial department go through and see what happened there.”
Peters was convicted in August 2024 of first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty, failure to comply with requirements of the Secretary of State, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, and three counts of attempt to influence a public servant. In all, she was found guilty on seven state charges, four of which are felonies. Prosecutors said she was motivated by false conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.
Polis had repeatedly dropped hints that he was moving toward commuting Peters’ sentence. He faced a bipartisan push to keep Peters imprisoned amid ongoing pressure by the Trump administration to move Peters into federal custody.
Following his State of the State address, the governor told Denver7 he was considering clemency for Peters, as he does with countless other cases every year. Two months later, Polis again signaled he was considering clemency for the disgraced former county clerk after extending a deadline for clemency applications.
As part of her clemency, Peters was released on parole as of June 1, spending less than two years behind bars out of her nine year sentence.
Then Proff and Taslimi began their work on the clemency advisory board, reviewing Peters' application among many others.
Proff is a criminal defense attorney who served on the clemency board for more than seven years.
"It was an extreme pleasure and an honor to serve on Governor Polis' clemency board," Proff said. "We had a backlog of applications from the Hickenlooper administration, so we started, we hit the ground running, and had plenty of applications to review, and met at least every other month for the entire seven and a half years to review applications and have extremely tough conversations with a diverse group of individuals.”
Taslimi is a civil rights attorney who was on the board for roughly three years. Taslimi described the position as "heavy work."
"We are engaging and reviewing applications of individuals who this is their last resort," Taslimi said. "This is sort of the last door that they have left to knock on, and so it's an immense responsibility, and that's how we approach the work.”
The two said they treated Peters' application for clemency with the same amount of care and consideration as all of the other applications they received.
“Everyone gets the same look, the same evaluation. It's the same process. There's no favor given to any one individual. And so, her application was just like everyone else. It was reviewed, we had a very similar discussion that we would on any other application, and we came to a unanimous decision," Taslimi said. “We are a very diverse group with lots of different backgrounds, and there is robust advocacy and conversation that happens on these applications, and so coming to a consensus is no small deed. And so, the fact that we reviewed this application and came to a consensus, not once but twice, I think speaks volumes as to how everyone felt about it.”
According to Taslimi and Proff, the board voted against approving Peters' application for clemency twice, with a second review being one of the inconsistencies the two noted.
“No one gets a review twice by the board. Generally, we look at applications once, and once we deny it, it's never that someone gets to come back, submit additional information, have us look at it again. That was extended to Miss Peters, and then there was a denial twice," Taslimi said.
Taslimi said typically, eligibility for clemency comes after a defendant has exhausted all of their other options for judicial remedies.
"That hadn't happened in this case," Taslimi said about Peters.
In addition, board members questioned the authenticity of Peters' remorse.
“We see so many applications written by hand in a jail cell, and then to see sort of legal letterhead, we just didn't think that the real remorse was there," Proff added. “The reason we decided to speak out, and put our future on this board at risk to tell the public about what happened behind the scenes here, is because as soon as she [Peters] got out of prison, she started waving this false flag again and telling this story and spreading this misinformation. So, it was more of the same.”
According to Taslimi and Proff, their positions have already been replaced.
"I think the problem with that certainly is there is a learning curve to being on the board. It takes time to figure out what's what," Taslimi said. "I think Governor Polis could have let us finish out the term, given that there are only one or two meetings left, but sometimes political egos get in the way.”
One of the statements provided to Denver7 by Polis' office said it is "clearly agreed" that all members of the Executive Clemency Advisory Board keep all clemency applications, discussions and recommendations confidential. The statement ended by saying that "applicants going forward can expect the full confidentiality promised."
“Essentially, what the governor is saying, is that what I do with clemency doesn't need to be shown to the public. How I, you know, make these decisions and whether there's undue political influence, no one gets to review that and look at that, and you don't get to talk about it. And I think that's problematic," Taslimi said. “There has to be accountability. If we allow for this process to occur in the shadows, then we allow for corruption to take place.”
Proff and Taslimi said their biggest concern now is the status of the applications that still must be considered.
"We want their applications to be reviewed by a competent board. A board that comes with the experience that's needed and necessary, and to make good decisions, and we want Governor Polis to show the same mercy and empathy that he showed to Tina Peters," Taslimi said.
Read the full, most recent statement, from Polis' office below:
When Governor Polis came into office, he recreated and reorganized the clemency board in Executive Order B 2019 012. The Executive Order states, ‘All Board proceedings and records, including clemency applications and related materials, shall be confidential and shall be available solely to the Governor and the Governor’s staff.’ Strict confidentiality in the clemency process protects victims, applicants, witnesses, and the board members’ ability to have candid conversations about very difficult recommendations and topics. This decision was not made because these individuals publicly said they disagree with the Governor on a specific case, but because they publicly disclosed how they and other members of the board voted, breaking the confidentiality this process requires. Victims and applicants need to be secure in the confidence that any deliberations or votes by the board are confidential to avoid trauma and maintain privacy.
