Why Colorado Is Violating Its Own Constitution by Keeping a Dying Tina Peters Behind Bars

By Mark Vargas, Editor-in-Chief

Colorado officials want the public to believe that keeping former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters in prison is justice. But when a woman’s health is collapsing, when she is rapidly declining, and when her continued confinement now poses a direct threat to her life, the law tells a very different story.

Colorado is not simply neglecting its responsibility – it is violating its own constitution.

Article II, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution states in unmistakable terms: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

While this language mirrors the Eighth Amendment, Colorado’s Supreme Court has long interpreted its own provision more broadly than the federal minimum. In People v. Gaskins, the court made it clear that Colorado’s protections against cruel punishment “are not limited by federal interpretations where broader protections are appropriate.”

That distinction matters right now. Tina Peters’ health has gotten so bad that keeping her in prison isn’t just unwise — it’s dangerous to her life. She is facing a real medical emergency, and the prison simply doesn’t have the doctors, equipment, or ability to treat her.

Colorado courts have already made it clear that when the state denies proper medical care, waits too long to provide it, or keeps someone in a place that cannot safely care for them, it crosses the line into cruel and unusual punishment.

This standard originates from Estelle v. Gamble, which held that “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs” violates constitutional protection against cruel punishment. Colorado courts explicitly adopted this principle in Ramos v. Lamm.

But Colorado’s Constitution goes even further. It recognizes that a sentence can start out lawful, yet become unconstitutional later if circumstances change. In other words, if someone’s health or situation gets so bad that the original punishment becomes far more severe than anyone intended, Colorado law says the courts must step in.

The Colorado Supreme Court has already confirmed this idea. In People v. Drake, the court made it clear that if a sentence becomes far too harsh because of a person’s medical condition, the courts have a duty to step in and declare it unconstitutional.

Colorado is also known for having one of the toughest proportionality standards in the country. In cases like People v. McNally and People v. Deroulet, the courts stressed that punishment has to make sense not just for the crime, but for the person’s actual situation.

When someone is so sick that prison can’t help them, can’t rehabilitate them, and can’t even keep them alive, the punishment stops serving any purpose. At that point, it becomes punishment for punishment’s sake — and Colorado’s Constitution has never allowed that.

That is exactly what Tina Peters is facing. Her health is collapsing. She isn’t getting the care she needs, not because the staff wants to harm her, but because the facility simply isn’t equipped to treat someone in her condition. And when state officials know that staying in prison will only make her worse — possibly fatally worse — and they refuse to act, that crosses a moral and constitutional line.

Courts have long said that forcing someone to endure avoidable suffering or medical danger is the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment.

In plain English, the argument is simple: Tina Peters’ sentence may have been legal, according to her political enemies, the day it was handed down. But today, with her serious and worsening medical condition, keeping her behind bars has become unconstitutional. It causes needless suffering and puts her life in danger.

Article II, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution prohibits exactly this kind of punishment.

And when imprisonment becomes a threat to someone’s life, Colorado law isn’t unclear — the courts must step in. They have the power to order medical release, transfer her to a real medical facility, adjust the sentence, or grant humanitarian relief.

What they cannot do is ignore a dying woman because her case is political.

Colorado may want to make an example out of Tina Peters. But no government gets to rewrite its own Constitution simply to punish someone it doesn’t like. And no state — especially one that claims to offer stronger protections than the federal government — has the right to let a political opponent die in a cell.

The law is clear. The medical reality is staring everyone in the face. And the moral responsibility could not be heavier.

Colorado must act — before justice crosses the line into something much darker, and far more shameful.