The decision by Polis to fire clemency board members has thrust Colorado’s governor back into a controversy he likely hoped was behind him. On Wednesday, Governor Jared Polis dismissed two members of his clemency advisory board after they publicly criticized his choice to release Tina Peters, a former county clerk convicted of election-related felonies. His office confirmed the removals to The Denver Post.

Why the Members Were Dismissed

The two attorneys, Hannah Seigel Proff and Azra Taslimi, were let go for what the governor described as a breach of confidentiality. According to letters from Polis, the pair violated their required duty by publicly revealing how board members had voted on the Peters matter.

The news first surfaced through reporting by the New York Times on Wednesday afternoon, and the governor’s office soon confirmed the details. In the governor’s view, disclosing internal votes crossed a line that board members are expected never to cross.

The Case That Started It All

To understand the uproar, it helps to revisit what Tina Peters actually did. In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Peters was serving as the clerk and recorder for Mesa County. During that time, she granted someone connected to prominent election denier Mike Lindell access to the county’s voting system.

That breach carried serious legal consequences. Peters was convicted on four felony counts and, in October 2024, received a nine-year prison sentence.

Her time behind bars, however, was cut short. In May, Polis commuted her sentence, offering a two-part justification:

• He argued that her punishment was significantly steeper than what others convicted of trying to influence a public official had received in comparable situations.
• He also contended that Peters was effectively being penalized for her speech.

A Wave of Backlash

The decision did not sit well with many in the governor’s own party. Polis faced sharp and immediate criticism from fellow Democrats, and the state party went so far as to formally censure him over the move. Despite the outcry, Peters walked free on June 1.

Weeks later, the two board members decided to speak out. In mid-June, Seigel Proff and Taslimi gave interviews and co-wrote an opinion piece for The Post that openly questioned the governor’s judgment.

Their central claim was striking. They revealed that the board had voted unanimously, not once but twice, to recommend that clemency for Peters be denied. Polis, they said, brushed aside that recommendation and released her early anyway. Worse, in their telling, he had a pattern of disregarding the board, including instances where they had urged him to grant clemency to other applicants and he declined.

The two attorneys framed the issue as something far larger than a single case. Their concern, they explained, was not really about Peters on her own. Instead, it was about what the governor’s choice exposed, a system that they said bends for certain people while remaining rigid for everyone else.

The Governor’s Response

Rather than engage the criticism directly, Polis moved to reshape the board. On Wednesday, his office quietly announced a series of appointments, including two new members to fill the seats that had just been vacated.

In a statement that evening, Polis spokesperson Eric Maruyama defended the removals by emphasizing the importance of discretion in the clemency process. He argued that reviewing applications demands careful judgment, fairness, and above all, strict confidentiality for those seeking relief.

Maruyama went further, warning that publicizing board recommendations and individual votes damages the panel’s credibility, taints future deliberations, and violates the confidentiality rules spelled out in the executive order that created the board. Going forward, he said, applicants can count on receiving the full confidentiality they were promised.

Peters Embraces the Spotlight

Since regaining her freedom, Peters has shown no interest in fading quietly into the background. She has appeared on podcasts and various conservative media outlets, using the platforms to keep promoting conspiracy theories about elections and to portray herself as a political prisoner.

Her highest-profile moment came this week. On Tuesday, Peters met with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office. Trump claimed credit for securing her release and asserted that she had caught Democrats cheating, language that echoes the very conspiracy narratives that surrounded her original case.

When asked about Peters spending her newfound freedom meeting with Trump and continuing to spread election falsehoods, Maruyama sidestepped the political theater. The governor, he said, is concentrating on protecting Colorado communities and managing the five major wildfires currently burning across the state, rather than on who happens to be visiting the Oval Office.

What It All Means

The firing of the two board members adds a fresh layer to a saga that has already tested loyalties within Colorado’s Democratic Party. On one side stands a governor insisting that confidentiality is the bedrock of a functioning clemency system. On the other stand two attorneys who felt the process had been quietly overridden and believed the public deserved to know.

Both sides claim to be defending integrity, yet they define it in opposing ways. For Polis, integrity means protecting the private deliberations that allow the board to function. For his critics, it means transparency when those deliberations appear to be ignored.

What remains clear is that the controversy surrounding Tina Peters is far from settled. With Peters actively courting national attention and the governor facing lingering discontent within his party, the questions raised by this episode about fairness, secrecy, and accountability seem likely to follow Polis well beyond this week.