GRAND JUNCTION — Tina Peters opted Friday not to testify in her defense — but not before expressing dissatisfaction with the fairness of her trial.

“I just feel like I have been prevented from providing a defense for myself,” she told 21st Judicial District Judge Matthew Barrett. “The court has excluded that and therefore I decline.”

On the eighth day of her trial, Peters had dangled the possibility she would testify, but only if the judge agreed to put guardrails on the questions she might be asked.

“I don’t want prosecutors to come in and bully me around like I have seen them do to others,” Peters told Barrett while the jury was out of the courtroom.

Barrett told Peters several times that he could not give legal advice to a defendant about whether she should testify, or not.

She persisted.

“I just ask that you restrain them and rein them in,” she said. “This will affect my decision whether to testify.”

“This is exceedingly unusual,” Barrett said about Peters’ request. He instructed her to consult with her attorneys.

Peters did that over a break and ultimately said she would not testify.

Defense lawyers rested their case after that, putting the trial on track to be wrapped up on Monday on schedule.

Four witnesses were called to defend Peters, but one was not allowed to testify

Peters’ lawyers called four witnesses to defend her actions when she and a cadre of election deniers breached the Mesa County elections system in May 2021.

Several cyber security experts testified briefly about blurred passwords in images released on a QAnon website in August 2021 — ostensibly to show that what Peters took from the elections system was not a thing of value.

The defense called a fellow former Colorado clerk, Dallas Schroeder, to testify. But Schroeder, who is now an Elbert County commissioner, was asked only three brief questions before the defense ended his testimony following a lengthy attorneys conference at the judge’s bench.

Schroeder said outside the courtroom that he had traveled to Colorado from a family vacation in Tennessee to testify.

Earlier, another hoped-for Peters’ witness — an election denier named David Clements — was not allowed to take the stand after more private attorney arguments.

Clements recently made a conspiracy-theory documentary that was shown in a Grand Junction church two weeks before the Peters’ trial began. Speakers at that event threatened violence against those trying to prosecute Peters and others trying to expose voter fraud.

No reason was given in open court for Clements not being allowed to take the stand. But the judge has repeatedly admonished the defense attorneys over the past week that the case before him is not about election fraud.

The defense’s star witness, Sherronna Bishop, a far-right activist and friend of Peters, was on the stand for a second day Friday for cross-examination by the defense.

When asked why she helped organize and took part in Peters’ breach of the election system, she answered “I was there as a voter and a concerned citizen.”

Bishop admitted she organized meetings with national-level election deniers, she set up encrypted chat sessions with those involved in the Mesa County breach, and she communicated regularly with Peters about the details of carrying out the breach. Those communications often occurred in the middle of the night.

Bishop’s memory of the details of the election deniers’ actions three years ago was sharp under defense questioning. She repeatedly answered, “I don’t recall” under questioning from the prosecution.

Once the defense rested its case and the jury was sent home, defense attorney Daniel Hartman asked Judge Barrett to throw out two of the charges against Peters — identity theft and official misconduct. Barrett declined.

Peters is charged with 10 felony and misdemeanor counts, including attempting to influence a public servant, criminal impersonation, identity theft, violation of duty and failure to comply with an order from the Colorado Secretary of State.

She faces the possibility of more than 20 years in prison if the jury finds her guilty.

The jury is expected to begin deliberations Monday after closing arguments.

GRAND JUNCTION — When former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters decided to use Mesa County’s voting system to try to do the bidding of national stolen-election conspiracists, she had inside help.

Tuesday, her chief aide, former deputy clerk Belinda Knisley, helped those prosecuting Peters.

Knisley calmly testified about Peters’ actions and about her own part in the breach of the county’s election system in May 2021 — a role Knisley said she took on at the direction of Peters.

Knisley detailed how Peters brought in a “mystery man” to make copies of the hard drive and passwords in the county’s election system. Knisley said Peters told her she needed to save the confidential materials because she was afraid the Colorado Secretary of State’s office was going to remove them.

Peters told Knisley she believed there might be proof of “phantom voters” in the computer files.

Peters doubled down on her legal jeopardy when she had copies of the election-system files and hardware sent to the mystery man, who has been identified several times during the trial as Conan Hayes. Hayes, a former professional surfer, had been recommended by national level stolen-election conspiracy theorists as “the best in the country” for hacking into a voting system. Knisley said Peters told her Hayes was a highly qualified consultant.

The effort to copy election materials and make Mesa County an example of stopping voter fraud collapsed into a saga that included a criminal investigation, national headlines, and a missing clerk after Hayes — or someone he was associated with — released Mesa County’s information on a website that trafficks in right-wing conspiracy theories.

All that broke open in August 2021 when Peters flew to a South Dakota cybersecurity symposium put on by MyPillow CEO and election denier Mike Lindell. When Peters learned the Mesa County information was on the internet, she phoned Knisley, who was running the office in Peters’ absence, and said she was in big trouble.

“I’m f—ked,” Knisley said Peters told her.

She said Peters repeatedly told her over the following weeks that she was going to go to jail for what she had done.

A Mesa County grand jury agreed that Peters had committed suspected crimes. She was indicted on seven felony and three misdemeanor counts that allege she participated in identity theft, criminal impersonation, official misconduct, and violating her duties as a county clerk.

After several years of delayed trials, Peters, 68, now faces the possibility of decades in prison if she is found guilty of all the charges.

A stickler for details who followed protocol

Knisley’s damning insider information about Peters’ actions in the spring and summer of 2021 was tempered with compliments for her former boss.

Under cross examination by defense attorney Michael Edminster, Knisley called Peters “a faithful public servant.”

She described her as a stickler for detail and a clerk who followed protocol.  

Knisley testified that in 2021, Peters told her she had no recourse but to use outside help to protect her election system — a scheme that has been detailed by prosecution witnesses in a jury trial that entered its fifth day Tuesday.

Knisley followed her boss’s instructions to put her plan into motion. She helped with the scheme to acquire an access badge for a local software engineer named Gerald Wood.

Different witnesses in the trial testified that Peters told differing accounts about Wood’s role in the county elections office — stories that were used to obtain an access badge and credentials in his name. Witnesses said Peters told some of them that he was a temporary hire, others that he was a state employee, and some that he was an employee of the motor vehicle division who was transitioning to elections.

Wood never served in any role once he had passed the background check and obtained the badge that would provide access to the secure election tabulation room.

Wood testified last week that he turned over that badge to Knisley at her request and did not hear from Peters or Knisley again. He testified that he did not know what had happened with his badge until he heard the news about the stolen election files.

Knisley also was indicted in the case. She pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charges against her in August 2022 and agreed to testify against Peters. She was sentenced to two years of unsupervised probation and the felony charges she faced were dropped.

Stolen-election conspiracy theorists invited into the office

In between hours of dry, detailed information about how elections and election equipment work, another former employee of Peters’ — elections manager Stephanie Wenholz — brought emotion into the courtroom Monday

She broke down in tears when prosecutor Robert Shapiro with the Colorado Attorney General’s office, asked her what happened in the elections office on Aug. 9, 2021. That was the day that  Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold issued a press release stating that the Mesa County office was under investigation.

“That day was extremely emotional for all of us,” Wenholz said. “It was absolutely heartbreaking when we found out our passwords were leaked.”

Wenholz had evidence related to that. She had recorded a meeting in May when Peters invited stolen-election conspiracists to her office to discuss how to prove voter fraud.

Eight people were in that meeting, including Peters’ friend Sherronna Bishop, a conspiracy theorist  who had been U.S. Rep Lauren Boebert’s campaign manager; Douglas Frank, a mathematician on Lindell’s payroll who was traveling around the country searching for voter fraud; Maurice Emmer, an Aspen attorney who was friends with Bishop; and four Mesa County  election officials. Two of the elections officials were on board with the idea the 2020 election had been stolen. Two did not believe their system contained proof of “phantom voters.”

“That was not correct,” Wenholz told the court about the theory Frank was promoting.

Wenholz turned her recording over to 21st Judicial District Attorney’s office investigator James Cannon. That recording helped to move along a case that was already underway and stacking up methodically obtained evidence.

Tuesday morning, Dominion Voting Systems’ customer success manager David Stah testified about his attendance at the software installation called a trusted build that is at the heart of the case. He said he attended the trusted build because he had heard there was a clerk questioning his company’s machines. Stahl attended trusted builds at only two of 62 Colorado counties with Dominion equipment — Mesa and Delta.

The remainder performed the routine software upgrades without question.

Venezuelan election discussed in courthouse chitchat

While the step-by-step testimony played out in the courtroom and around 600 people watched the live stream of the trial at any given time on YouTube, Peters’ crowd of supporters grew this week with some nationally known voter-fraud figures.

Prominent election denier Mark Finchem showed up Monday and Tuesday. He is currently running for a senate seat in Arizona and was recently sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit there. He has ties to Trump’s core of stolen-election conspiracists including Rudy Guliani and Michael Flynn.

Finchem showed up with two bodyguards. He said he spoke to a fundraising gathering Sunday at a private home in Mesa County.

A friend of Finchem’s said the party attracted about 90 people, most from out of the Mesa County area. Another attendee estimated there were 40 to 50 people there.

“We have to pay for this circus somehow,” Finchem’s friend said as she pointed towards the courtroom.

Former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack also attended the trial Monday and Tuesday. Mack is the founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. He wore shirts promoting the group and pinned a whistle and a plastic medallion to the front. The medallion was inscribed “Tina Peters Whistleblower.”

“Our position is that wrath is raining down on the clerk for doing her job,” he said outside the courtroom.

Mack spoke to a second gathering of Peters’ supporters Monday night.

“I hate injustice,” Mack said while he waited outside the courtroom during a break.

Marty Waldman, a member of the Constitutional Sheriffs group, called the Peters’ trial “the apex of civilization.”

He explained that, in his view, Mesa County’s election system is akin to the voting machines currently embroiled in elections in Venezuela that are being called corrupt.

“Everything that happened in Venezuela is happening in this courtroom here,” he said. “If you look at the graphs, they are the same. The algorithms are the same.”

Defense attorney Daniel Hartman brought some of those conspiracy theories into the courtroom Monday and Tuesday even though 21st Judicial District Judge Matthew Barrett has ruled that topic is not admissible.

“You can’t engage in crime to expose a crime”

With the jury out of the courtroom, Hartman spent 40 minutes trying to convince Barrett that testimony about Dominion Voting Systems should be allowed and that Peters should be found innocent because she was trying to protect Hayes who he claims is a federal informant. He said it was necessary that Peters protect his identity and that led to the subterfuge with Gerald Wood.

Hartman referred to articles in the Gateway Pundit and to elections in Serbia and called the case against Peters “a mob hit,” before Barrett ruled again that Peters’ trial has nothing to do with the functionality of voting equipment.” Hartman promised to cite cases to back up his claims but did not offer any cases.

“You can’t engage in a crime to expose a crime,” Barrett said about Hartman’s argument that Peters covered up an unauthorized person’s identity only to try to show there were errors in voting machines.

He called Hartman’s arguments, “irrelevant, misleading, confusing and a waste of time.”

Outside the courtroom there was another bit of drama when Peters grabbed the arm of a reporter who was trying to snap a photo of her on a cell phone. The reporter for the Colorado Newsline was called to the Mesa County Sheriff’s Office Tuesday afternoon for an investigation.While Peters’ trial continues, with the prosecution expected to wrap up its case Wednesday or Thursday, the Colorado County Clerks Association is meeting just two blocks away in a city convention center – by coincidence. None of those clerks have shown up to observe the trial in person.

By Jacques Billeaud, The Associated Press

PHOENIX — Former President Donald Trump’s campaign attorney Jenna Ellis, who worked closely with Rudy Giuliani, will cooperate with Arizona prosecutors in exchange for charges being dropped against her in a fake electors case, the state attorney general’s office announced Monday.

Ellis has previously pleaded not guilty to fraud, forgery and conspiracy charges in the Arizona case. Seventeen other people charged in the case have pleaded not guilty to the felony charges — including Giuliani, Trump presidential chief of staff Mark Meadows and 11 Republicans who submitted a document to Congress falsely declaring Trump had won Arizona.

“Her insights are invaluable and will greatly aid the State in proving its case in court,” Attorney General Kris Mayes said in a statement. “As I stated when the initial charges were announced, I will not allow American democracy to be undermined — it is far too important. Today’s announcement is a win for the rule of law.”

Last year, Ellis was charged in Georgia after she appeared with Giuliani at a December 2020 hearing hosted by state Republican lawmakers at the Georgia Capitol during which false allegations of election fraud were made. She had pleaded guilty in October to one felony count of aiding and abetting false statements and writings. The cooperation agreement signed by Ellis in the Arizona case requires her to provide truthful information to the Attorney General’s Office and testify honestly in proceedings in any state or federal court. Prosecutors can withdraw from the deal and refile charges if Ellis violates the agreement.

Prosecutors have already asked a court to dismiss the Arizona charges against Ellis. It wasn’t immediately clear if a judge had yet approved the request.

The Associated Press left messages with Ellis’ attorney, Matthew Brown, after the agreement was announced Monday.

While not a fake elector in Arizona, prosecutors say Ellis made false claims of widespread election fraud in the state and six others, encouraged the Arizona Legislature to change the outcome of the election and encouraged then-Vice President Mike Pence to accept Arizona’s fake elector votes.

The indictment said Ellis, Giuliani and other associates were at a meeting at the Arizona Legislature on Dec. 1, 2020, with then-House Speaker Rusty Bowers and other Republicans when Giuliani and his team asked the speaker to hold a committee hearing on the election.

When Bowers asked for proof of election fraud, Giuliani said he had proof but Ellis had advised that it was left back at a hotel room, the indictment said. No proof was provided to Bowers.

The Daily Sun-Up podcast | More episodes

Ellis also is barred from practicing law in Colorado for three years after her guilty plea in Georgia.

Prosecutors in Michigan, Nevada, Georgia and Wisconsin have also filed criminal charges related to the fake electors scheme.

Arizona authorities unveiled the felony charges in late April. Overall, charges were brought against 11 Republicans who submitted a document to Congress falsely declaring Trump had won Arizona, five lawyers connected to the former president and two former Trump aides. President Joe Biden won Arizona by 10,457 votes.

Trump himself was not charged in the Arizona case but was referred to as an unindicted co-conspirator in the indictment.

The 11 people who claimed to be Arizona’s Republican electors met in Phoenix on Dec. 14, 2020, to sign a certificate saying they were “duly elected and qualified” electors and asserting that Trump carried the state. A one-minute video of the signing ceremony was posted on social media by the Arizona Republican Party at the time. The document was later sent to Congress and the National Archives, where it was ignored.

A Telluride man who previously pleaded guilty to his role in the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol in 2021 was sentenced Thursday to one year in prison and must pay $2,000 in restitution, according to the U.S. Attorney’s office.

Avery MacCracken, 70, who in October pleaded guilty to one count of felony obstruction of law enforcement officers during a civil disorder also will serve three years of supervised release. He faced up to five years in prison and a $25,000 fine.

Under his plea agreement, the court dropped five other charges, including assault for punching a police officer who was protecting the Capitol, court records show. 

Investigators said MacCracken was part of a mob of rioters who pushed past a police line outside the Capitol around 2 p.m. Jan. 6, 2021. He then climbed to the top of the inauguration bleachers and refused to leave until he was pushed off the platform by police, according to court documents. He stayed at the Capitol until approximately 5 p.m. when police finally cleared the area.

MacCracken was arrested by the FBI in Telluride on Dec. 11, 2021.

In October, MacCracken said he flew from Montrose to Washington to support former President Donald Trump and protest the results of the 2020 election. With his hands balled into fists, MacCracken said he pushed toward the line of police officers guarding the building and pushed a police officer’s arm.

He said he grabbed another officer who was trying to stop him by the arm and then his jacket, near his shoulder, court documents stated. 

Under the plea agreement, MacCracken agreed to be interviewed by federal investigators about the events on Jan. 6 and allow them to review his social media accounts for posts made when hundreds of people stormed the Capitol. 

Footage from an officer’s body-worn camera showed MacCracken, then 68, punching an officer who was part of a line protecting the Capitol and shoving and pushing a second officer in the line.

MacCracken is one of more than a dozen Coloradans who have been charged for their involvement in the Jan. 6 riots. Some of them have been sentenced, while others await trial.

By David Bauder, Randall Chase and Geoff Mulvihill, The Associated Press

WILMINGTON, Del. — Fox News agreed Tuesday to pay Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems nearly $800 million to avert a trial in the voting machine company’s lawsuit that would have exposed how the network promoted lies about the 2020 presidential election.

The stunning settlement emerged just as opening statements were supposed to begin, abruptly ending a case that had embarrassed Fox News over several months and raised the possibility that network founder Rupert Murdoch and stars such as Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity would have to testify publicly.

“The truth matters. Lies have consequences,” Dominion lawyer Justin Nelson told reporters outside a Delaware courthouse after Superior Court Judge Eric Davis announced the deal.

Outside of the $787.5 million promised to Dominion, it was unclear what other consequences Fox would face. Fox acknowledged in a statement “the court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false,” but no apology was offered.

“We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues,” Fox said. Its lawyers and representatives offered no other comment or details about the settlement.

Asked by a reporter whether there was “anything to this other than money,” Dominion CEO John Poulos did not answer.

The deal is a significant amount of money even for a company the size of Fox. It represents about one-quarter of the $2.96 billion the company reported earning last year before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization — a figure often used to approximate a company’s cash flow.

The settlement also follows a $965 million judgment issued against Alex Jones by a Connecticut jury in 2022 for spreading false conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook school massacre.

Coupled with other lawsuits in the pipeline, the agreement shows there is a real financial risk for conservative media that traffic in conspiracy theories. What remains unknown is how much of a deterrent this will be. Even as the Dominion case loomed this spring, Fox’s Tucker Carlson aired his alternate theories about what happened at the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

Dominion had sued Fox for $1.6 billion, arguing that the top-rated news outlet had damaged the company’s reputation by peddling phony conspiracy theories that claimed its equipment switched votes from former President Donald Trump to Democrat Joe Biden. Davis, in an earlier ruling, said it was “CRYSTAL clear” that none of the allegations about Dominion aired on Fox by Trump allies were true.

Dominion set out to prove in the lawsuit that Fox acted with malice in airing allegations that it knew to be false, or with “reckless disregard” for the truth. It presented volumes of internal emails and text messages that showed Fox executives and personalities saying they knew the accusations were untrue, even as the falsehoods were aired on programs hosted by Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs and Jeannine Pirro.

Records released as part of the lawsuit showed that Fox aired the claims in part to win back viewers who were fleeing the network after it correctly called hotly contested Arizona for Democrat Joe Biden on election night. One Fox Corp. vice president called them “MIND BLOWINGLY NUTS.”

During a deposition, Murdoch testified that he believed the 2020 election was fair and had not been stolen from Trump.

“Fox knew the truth,” Dominion argued in court papers. “It knew the allegations against Dominion were ‘outlandish’ and ‘crazy’ and ‘ludicrous’ and ‘nuts.’ Yet it used the power and influence of its platform to promote that false story.”

Several First Amendment experts said Dominion’s case was among the strongest they had ever seen. But there was real doubt about whether Dominion would be able to prove to a jury that people in a decision-making capacity at Fox could be held responsible for the network’s actions.

Dominion’s Nelson called the settlement “a tremendous victory” and noted that there are six more lawsuits pending regarding election claims.

“We settled because it was about accountability,” Nelson said in an interview. “Our goals were to make sure that there was accountability for the lies, and to try to make our client right. And we accomplished both goals.”

It’s hard to tell what the deal will mean financially for Dominion. The company would not provide its most recent earnings, saying the figures were not public.

In the weeks leading up to the trial, Davis significantly narrowed Fox’s potential line of defense, including nixing the network’s argument that it was merely airing newsworthy allegations. Newsworthiness is not a defense against defamation, he said.

In a March 31 ruling, he pointedly called out the network for airing falsehoods while noting that bogus election claims still persist more than two years after Trump lost his bid for reelection.

“The statements at issue were dramatically different than the truth,” Davis said in that ruling. “In fact, although it cannot be attributed directly to Fox’s statements, it is noteworthy that some Americans still believe the election was rigged.”

In its defense, Fox said it was obligated to report on a president who claimed that he had been cheated out of reelection.

“We never reported those to be true,” Fox lawyer Erin Murphy said. “All we ever did was provide viewers the true fact that these were allegations that were being made.”

Dominion had sued both Fox News and its parent, Fox Corp, and said its business had been significantly damaged. Fox said the company grossly overestimated its losses, before agreeing to pay about half of what Dominion had asked for.

In a 1964 case involving The New York Times, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the ability of public figures to sue for defamation. The court ruled that plaintiffs needed to prove that news outlets published or aired false material with “actual malice” — knowing such material was false or acting with a “reckless disregard” for whether or not it was true.

That has provided news organizations with stout protection against libel judgments. Yet the nearly six-decade legal standard has come under attack by some conservatives in recent years, including Trump and Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who have argued for making it easier to win a libel case.

“The larger importance of the settlement … is that the high level of protection for news media in a defamation case remains intact from now,” said Doreen Weisenhaus, an instructor of media law at Northwestern University.

In documents released in recent months, Fox executives and anchors discussed how not to alienate the audience, many of whom believed Trump’s claims of fraud despite no evidence to back them up. Fox’s Tucker Carlson suggested a news reporter be fired for tweeting a fact check debunking the fraud claims.

Some of the exhibits were simply embarrassing, such as scornful behind-the-scenes opinions about Trump, whose supporters form the core of the network’s viewers. Text exchanges revealed as part of the lawsuit show Carlson declaring, “I hate him passionately,” and saying that “we are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights.”

Fox News announced the settlement on Neil Cavuto’s afternoon news show. “It’s a done deal,” he said. “It’s a settlement and for at least Fox, it appears to be over.”

But Fox’s legal problems may not be over. It still faces a defamation lawsuit from another voting technology company, Smartmatic. Its lawyer, Erik Connolly, said Tuesday that “Dominion’s litigation exposed some of the misconduct and damage caused by Fox’s disinformation campaign. Smartmatic will expose the rest.”

Associated Press writers Jennifer Peltz in New York and Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.

Federal authorities on Thursday arrested a Colorado Springs man who prosecutors say was part of a group of Jan. 6 rioters who violently pushed against police officers desperately trying to defend the U.S. Capitol from the angry mob in a tunnel.

Jonathan Grace, 49, faces charges including felony civil disorder. Grace appeared in U.S. District Court in Denver on Thursday. The judge ordered his release and set the terms of his pre-trial supervision, including weekly phone calls with a probation officers in Washington, D.C., but not going to Washington unless for court hearings or meeting with an attorney. His next court appearance is set for April 10.

Surveillance video shows Grace entering a tunnel where officers were lined up as they tried to beat back the mob. Grace can be seen putting his head down and using his body to push in unison with other rioters against the police line, authorities say.

As the rioters pushed, one of officers screamed in pain while being crushed between a shield and a door frame in one of the most harrowing scenes from the riot, according to court documents.

After officers at one point managed to clear rioters out of the tunnel, Grace watched as other rioters dragged a D.C. police officer out of the tunnel and brutally attacked him, authorities say. He then re-joined the rioters pushing against the police line and retreated only after officers sprayed a chemical irritant at the crowd, according to court documents.

He joins roughly 1,000 people who have charged with federal crimes in the riot that halted the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory and left dozens of police officers injured. All of the cases are being prosecuted in Washington D.C.’s federal court and authorities continue to make new arrests practically every week.

More than 540 defendants have pleaded guilty. Dozens more have been convicted by judges or juries after trials. More than 440 have been sentenced, with over half getting terms of imprisonment ranging from seven days to 10 years.

The Colorado Sun contributed to this report.

Morgan Carroll, who has served as chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party since 2017 and presided over her party as it secured more sustained power in the state than ever before, will not run for a fourth two-year term in the leadership position. 

Carroll will step down as chairwoman when the state party votes on a new chair in April, she told The Colorado Sun on Wednesday. Her decision will likely set off a dynamic, and potentially crowded, race to replace her.

“I don’t know what I’m doing next, but I feel proud enough of where I have left the state party that I feel like I can hand this off to somebody else,” she said. “I have loved this so much, and the results make a difference and that is incredible.”

Carroll is stepping down with Democrats in solid control of state government, including every major statewide office, until 2027.

There are no statewide elected offices up for grabs for four years in Colorado, and Democrats’ majorities in the Colorado Senate and House are so large that it’s unrealistic the GOP will have a chance at securing a majority in either or both chambers until 2026.

Democrats’ biggest challenges in the 2024 election will be helping U.S. Rep.-elect Yadira Caraveo win another term in Colorado’s 8th Congressional District and trying to unseat U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, a Garfield County Republican. Colorado is not expected to be a competitive state in the next presidential election.

Before serving as chairwoman of the state party, Carroll, a lawyer, was president of the Colorado Senate from 2013 to 2015. Carroll served in the Senate from 2009 to 2017 and before that was a member of the Colorado House from 2005 to 2009.

The University of Colorado Law School graduate also ran unsuccessfully in 2016 to represent Colorado’s 6th Congressional District.

Carroll said she never intended to run for state party chair but that she was inspired to do so after her 2016 congressional bid and after President Donald Trump was elected that year.

“I started to be concerned that we had a more fundamental structural need to kind of rebuild the party,” she said. “My goal was to win all of our (statewide) seats and to flip or grow the majority of every institution in the state of Colorado. And we did that.”

She added: “I feel like the mission has been accomplished.”

Carroll said she focused her efforts as chairwoman on winning down-ballot contests like the races for attorney general, secretary of state and treasurer, as well as legislative contests. 

“We really focused on building the grassroots on developing candidates, on being analytical, on being very voter-centered,” she said. “It’s been absolutely amazing, but it has been exhausting.”

In 2020, Democrats for the first time since 1936 won control of every major statewide elected office, both chambers of the legislature, both U.S. Senate seats and the balance of the state’s U.S. House delegation. The Colorado Democratic Party says its legislative majorities in the House and Senate have never been so large.

“We can’t take any of these votes for granted,” she said. “We have to reearn them every cycle though. But I think the Colorado Democratic Party is in good shape. I’d rather hand off a strong, well-organized, successful party to somebody else when it’s kind of at the pinnacle of doing well.”

One possible contender to replace Carroll is longtime Democratic strategist Shad Murib, the son of Lebanese immigrants, who told The Colorado Sun it’s more likely than not that he runs to be state party chairman. With Democrats in control of state government for the next several years, he wants to put more party emphasis on winning local races, like those for county clerk, sheriff and commissioner, as well as district attorney contests.

“I want to thank Morgan Carroll for her years of service to the state,” Murib said. “I believe the next frontier of democratic politics is local. When a far-right sheriff doesn’t enforce our gun safety laws, that puts people in danger and, frankly, I’m sick of it. I am excited about our historic wins in recent cycles and now I think it’s time to take on far-right obstructionists at the local level who are standing in the way of progress.”

Murib, the husband of state Sen. Kerry Donovan, has worked for Gov. Jared Jared Polis, U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper and Secretary of State Jena Griswold and served as a top aide in the state Senate. He says  his record of winning tough races for Democratic candidates  sets him apart from anyone else who will run for the party’s top job.

“I’ve won in races that we’ve had no business winning,” he said, pointing to legislative and board of education contests. “I think one of my calling cards is that if you want to win a tough race, you bring me on to the team.”

On the Republican side, the Colorado GOP will also vote early next year on who should be its chair for the next two years. 

Chairwoman Kristi Burton Brown has not said publicly whether she will seek another term. “I’m having a lot of conversations with people,” she told George Brauchler last month on his 710 KNUS talk radio show. “I’ll definitely make sure people know what I’m doing, likely sometime in December.”

A group of far-right Republicans, including indicted Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, held a rally last week calling for new leadership at the state party after another disappointing election cycle. 

Burton Brown is the Colorado GOP’s third chair since 2017. 

Last year was a banner year for voters across the country approving taxes that protected open spaces, parks and public land. There were 51 conservation funding measures on ballots last year and voters approved 50 of them, creating a flow of more than $3.7 billion for the climate, open space and parks for the next two decades.

It was a high-water mark for conservation funding.

This story first appeared in The Outsider, the premium outdoor newsletter by Jason Blevins.

In it, he covers the industry from the inside out, plus the fun side of being outdoors in our beautiful state.

SUBSCRIBE

The election cycle in 2021 had fewer ballot conservation measures, but voters again came out in widespread support for directing tax dollars toward protecting public lands and natural spaces. 

“It feels like we might be on the verge of moving something that has been good, to really great,” said Conor Hall, the director of conservation strategies, policy and advocacy for the Intermountain West at the Trust for Public Land.

The Trust for Public Land — alongside many conservation groups — championed 26 conservation ballot measures in 11 states in 2020 and voters passed all of them, marking a first-ever sweep since the trust began helping communities pass conservation measures 25 years ago. Typically the group sees about 85% of the measures it backs win. 

Last year voters in Colorado renewed Adams County’s quarter-cent sales tax, which will yield about $400 million for parks and open space in the next 20 years. Denver voters in 2020 approved a quarter-cent climate sales tax that proponents expect will generate $720 million for climate programs over the next two decades. Voters in 15 Western Slope counties approved a property tax increase that will direct $100 million in the next 20 years toward water projects. 

This year, voters in Colorado again approved a record amount of conservation funding, setting an off-year election cycle record in Colorado with $580 million in funding for the next 20 years.

Arapahoe County’s Measure 1A  permanently directs the county’s quarter-of-a-penny sales and use tax to parks, wildlife areas, trails, farms and local conservation projects. Over 20 years, the tax will create about $560 million in funding. Colorado Springs’ Measure 2D directs $20 million in tax dollars to a regional wildfire mitigation plan. And the rejection of Denver’s Ordinance 304, which would have lowered the sales and use tax in Denver, protected sales tax funding for parks and climate policies that Denver voters approved in 2018 and 2020. 

But it wasn’t a sweep in 2021 like 2020. Conservation groups lost Colorado Springs’ Measure 2C, which would have doubled a sales tax that funded parks, trails and open space and extended the tax to 2041.

(Hall said the campaign for 2C had diverse support but was unable to overcome “a wave of very conservative voters who turned out to vote on up-ballot races, mostly involving school boards.”)

Conservation groups are looking at the wave of diverse voters approving taxes for land protection in 2020 and 2021 as, possibly, a new normal. Could conservation become one of the few bipartisan issues that unites voters from both urban and rural areas? Hall thinks so. 

“I think there’s a realization that we have to step up,” Hall said. “People recognize the importance nature plays in their lives and they want to protect that for generations to come.”

So does Jessica Goad, the deputy director of Conservation Colorado. She sees the state’s growing population of outdoor users outpacing the ability to protect open spaces and access to natural spaces. 

“People are seeing that pressure in the outdoors every time they go outside, so it’s no wonder conservation measures are seeing such success right now,” she said. 

Colorado has a long history of paying taxes to keep natural spaces open, accessible and free of development. Boulder County voters approved one of the state’s first open space sales taxes in 1967. The creation of Great Outdoors Colorado in 1992 has resulted in more than $1.3 billion of Colorado Lottery money funding some 5,300 conservation projects in all 64 Colorado counties. 

More recent votes have directed conservation dollars toward urban and overlooked areas, like Denver’s Climate Protection Fund and Arapahoe County’s 1A.

“There is a realization moving forward on how important it is to focus on who has access to conservation funding dollars,” Goad said. “We believe broad and large scale public investment is needed and conservation should be viewed as a core government function akin to infrastructure and law enforcement.”

It’s not just voters who are coming around to conservation. Politicians are more ready to direct tax dollars toward protecting threatened landscapes, water supplies and equitable access to the outdoors.

Recent legislation approving the Keep Colorado Wild Pass, which funds Colorado Parks & Wildlife shows lawmakers willing to invest in conservation.

To reach lofty goals like protecting 30% of the nation’s land and water by 2030, conservation funding needs both lawmakers and voters, Goad said. 

“Over and over again, Colorado voters are saying it is our priority to invest in conservation and they are demonstrating that by not just approving conservation measures but putting conservation leaders in office,” Goad said. 

A lot of urbanites have moved to rural enclaves in the last 18-plus months and those newcomers are big fans of outdoor recreation on public lands. The crowding at trailheads and in heavily-trafficked areas is amplifying the need for more trails and places to recreate. And a new swell of rural voters is ready to help pay for that access and expansion. 

At the same time growth pressures in rural communities are creating more homes and more development.

“All these rapid changes and rapid growth is really getting people’s attention about how their communities are changing. Regardless of your political stripe, you are noticing these things,” said Megan Lawson, an economist with Montana’s Headwaters Economics, a nonprofit research group that studies rural and public lands issues. 

Some of Lawson’s more recent research shows more people moving to counties with lots of recreational opportunities and those newcomers tend to have higher incomes than people moving to cities. And those new residents appear more ready to direct tax dollars toward conservation. 

That demographic shift mirrors the recent evolution of outdoor recreation.

Playing outside, not long ago, was considered a mere pastime. Now it is growing into a critical economic engine anchoring rural economies. (The latest federal accounting of outdoor recreation — an important tool for framing recreation as much more than a side pursuit for fun-seekers — shows a growing industry contributing $688 billion to the U.S. economy.)

More communities are trying to build their economy around outdoor recreation and that requires space to play, Lawson said. 

“This really does not have to be partisan,” she said. “It really depends on how conservation is framed and making sure that whatever is developed or protected meets the needs of the communities, whether it’s a community walking trail or trails for ATVs or economic development. If the investment matches what residents want and need most, it’s not surprising to see it win voter approval.”

In places where sales taxes have been funding conservation for many years, voters often approve extensions of those taxes because the benefits are evident in trails, parks and swaths of undeveloped, protected land. The challenge going forward for conservation groups is to introduce those sales taxes in new locations, like Weld County, Mesa County, Garfield County and the San Luis Valley, Hall said. 

“There are still corners of Colorado where we have not yet been able to establish that first sales tax to get the local conservation funding flowing. That’s where we want to take this momentum, into these jurisdictions that don’t have this funding,” Hall said. “Access to nature should not be a privilege. It should be a right. It’s so important to our development and health.”

A Denver courtroom provided the setting for a war of words this week, Trump campaign figures and their conservative media allies on one side and a key target of unfounded claims of fraud in the 2020 election on the other.

The defamation lawsuit provides a window into the Trump campaign and the origins of claims central to the effort by die-hard Trump supporters to cast doubt on the 2020 election.

The highest profile appearance came from Sidney Powell, the former lawyer for President Donald Trump best known for her promise to “release the Kraken” with regard to election fraud allegations. A federal judge in Michigan sanctioned Powell in August for “a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process” related to her legal efforts to push baseless election fraud claims in court. Her attorney objected Wednesday when lawyers for the plaintiff, Eric Coomer of Dominion Voting Systems, mentioned the sanctions in the Denver hearing, but the judge allowed it.

Powell had wanted to argue her own case in place of her lawyers, though lawyers for Coomer objected, arguing that it would improperly mix testimony with legal arguments.

When it was time for Powell’s legal team to speak Wednesday, her attorney, Republican former state Rep. Barry Arrington, was down the street representing a gun rights group in an appeals case against the state, ultimately pushing Powell’s arguments to Thursday.

Defendants in the defamation case — including Rudy Giuliani, Powell, One American News Network and the Trump campaign itself —  jockeyed to persuade Judge Marie Avery Moses to dismiss the lawsuit under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP law, which is meant to protect journalists and members of the public from being targeted by frivolous, retaliatory lawsuits aimed at stifling free speech.

The focus of the case is on claims made by conservative Colorado-based media figure Joe Oltmann that he infiltrated an antifa conference call in which Coomer allegedly stated that he had made sure Trump wouldn’t win the election. Conservative media outlets including One American News Network publicized Oltmann’s claims, which Trump-associated lawyers like Rudy Giuliani and Powell pushed in post-election news conferences to sow doubt about the integrity of the election.

Coomer has said the claims are all lies, with one of his lawyers, Zach Bowman, describing Oltmann’s claims as “a fraud narrative looking for a target — it was a calculated falsehood, it was not a mistake.”

His lawyers played video clips of testimony by Oltmann, Giuliani, Powell and others. They also reviewed Oltmann’s handwritten notes that he claims to have written during the antifa conference call as well as an internal Trump campaign memo described as a “smoking bullet.”

Meanwhile, the man whose claims sparked the firestorm is defying a “civility order” from the judge by attacking her and others on social media.

Oltmann came into the courtroom about 40 minutes after the hearing started on Wednesday, and after the judge had reviewed the order with everyone in the courtroom. 

At the end of the day Wednesday, one of Coomer’s attorneys alerted the judge to disparaging posts Oltmann allegedly made about her on Telegram, a social media website popular with conservatives. The Colorado Sun found Telegram posts from Oltmann accusing the judge of being “so obviously compromised and colluding with the radical agenda” and calling Coomer and his lawyers liars.

Coomer’s lawyers told Moses they wanted the posts to stop: “This endangers us, our client and the court.”

Moses said she would not let anyone derail the proceedings, insisting that safety is the court’s top priority.

The courtroom was guarded by a heavy security detail. At least three sheriff’s deputies were inside throughout the proceedings, one (or two) posted at the door and two more standing in the back corners, watching over the room and ready to enforce the judge’s orders on decorum. Even more stood outside the courtroom.

Moses advised Oltmann’s lawyers to suggest that he leave his phone outside the courtroom on Thursday.

Oltmann vowed Wednesday night to defy the judge’s order, which he likened to “Nazi Germany” and even threatened to sue her.

“I’m not going to stop using my 1st Amendment right to speak truth,” he wrote on Telegram. “I am not in violation of any order because I had no knowledge of the order and no one gave me an order. Now that I know, I will respect the unconstitutional order and make sure I post it for everyone to see while I sue the judge for violating my rights.”

Oltmann’s defiance of the court order could open him up to contempt proceedings. He’s already defied court orders in the case. In August, the judge ordering him to pay costs and legal fees for the plaintiffs when he didn’t show up to an in-person deposition. This month, the judge barred his lawyers from disputing certain evidence after he refused to identify the alleged person who got him access to Coomer’s private Facebook posts.

Coomer sat quietly on the far right side of the courtroom surrounded by his legal team, occasionally taking notes and fidgeting with his pen.

For her part, Powell spent much of her time in court looking at her phone, even as Coomer’s lawyers played a video of her deposition.

One of the key questions before the judge is whether Coomer is considered a public figure by virtue of his position as the director of product strategy and security for Dominion during the election, which would mean Coomer would ultimately have to prove that the defendants either knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. If not, Coomer would ultimately have to show only that the defendants were negligent.

Another question is whether the statements are about a matter of public concern. Defendants pointed to Coomer’s role at Dominion combined with anti-Trump Facebook posts he made as being a matter of public concern in the context of election integrity, while Coomer’s lawyers argued that defamatory statements cannot themselves be the origin of a public concern.

Ultimately, Moses could split her decision, dismissing the lawsuit for some of the defendants, like Giuliani or Powell, while allowing the lawsuit to move forward against others, like Oltmann.

Oltmann’s attorney, Ingrid DeFranco said Coomer’s team painted her client as a man with “an obsession, perhaps a delusional obsession.” If so, she argued, then Oltmann “could not possibly have entertained grave doubts about the truth,” and therefore can’t be liable for defamation.

On the other side, Bowman, noted the damage that disinformation has done to the country over the past two years, and in the case of Oltmann’s claims, the disinformation “continues to damage Dr. Coomer and continues to threaten our democracy.”

Each side has 60 days to file their legal conclusions and position on the facts of the case, which the judge will use to decide whether to dismiss the case or let it go forward.

Colorado’s new, eighth congressional district would include the cities of Arvada, Westminster, Broomfield, Thornton, Brighton and Platteville, a preliminary map drawn by nonpartisan redistricting staff and presented to the state’s Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission on Wednesday shows.

Staff placed the new district in the north Denver metro area for two reasons, said Jeremiah Barry, a legislative attorney advising the redistricting commissions.

“The first reason was we recognize this was the fastest-growing area of the state,” said Barry. “The second was a recognition that although nearly 30% of the population of the state are Hispanics, none of the current seven districts are represented by a Hispanic.”

The map is a major first step in the state’s once-a-decade redistricting process. It will evolve as the commission gets input from the public and interest groups over the next few months.

The preliminary map is based on 2019 U.S. Census Bureau estimates because of a monthslong delay in the release of the final population data collected during the 2020 Census. Once the U.S. Census Bureau releases that data in August, redistricting staff will have to adjust the map. 

“It’s the starting line, but nowhere near the finish line,” Curtis Hubbard, a Democratic political consultant who is registered to lobby the redistricting commissions, said of the preliminary map.

View an interactive version of the preliminary congressional map.

The initial map, the public’s first glimpse at how the 8th District may affect the state’s political landscape, also makes changes to the state’s existing seven congressional districts. 

The 3rd District, represented by Garfield County Republican Lauren Boebert, would gain Eagle, Summit, Grand, Park, Teller and Fremont counties, as well as some of western Boulder County. The San Luis Valley and Pueblo County would be dropped and added to the 4th District, which includes northeast and southeast Colorado and is currently represented by U.S. Rep. Ken Buck, a Republican from Windsor.

The 5th District, currently represented by U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn, a Colorado Springs Republican, would contract to include only parts of El Paso County. Southeastern El Paso County and counties in the western part of the district would be drawn into other districts. 

The 7th District, centered in Jefferson County and currently represented by U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, an Arvada Democrat, would shift south to include Castle Rock, dropping some of Denver’s northwest suburbs, including the bulk of Arvada. 

Perlmutter, however, would remain in the 7th District under the preliminary map, though only narrowly — by about 50 yards.

The new 7th District looks to be the most competitive of the new map. In 2018, the Republican candidate won the attorney general’s contest in the new proposed district by 3 percentage points, though a Democrat won the statewide vote.

The 1st District, represented now by U.S. Rep. Diana Degette, a Denver Democrat, would encompass only Denver, dropping portions of Arapahoe and Jefferson counties. 

The 6th District, represented by U.S. Rep. Jason Crow, a Centennial Democrat, would lose some of its northern half while continuing to include Aurora, Centennial and Littleton. Both of those districts went heavily Democratic in the 2018 attorney general contest, and, along with the 2nd District in Boulder and Larimer counties, are considered safe seats for that party.

Nonpartisan staff used the results of the 2018 attorney general contest, the closest statewide race in a recent, nonpresidential election year, as well as voter registration figures to measure political competitiveness of the redrawn districts.  

Based on results of the attorney general race, Districts 1 and 2 would be solidly Democratic while Districts 4 and 5 would be solidly Republican. 

Republicans would have an advantage of nearly 10 percentage points in the 3rd District and 3 percentage points in the 7th District, while Democrats would hold a 12.7 percentage point advantage in the 6th District and 7.3 percentage point advantage in the 8th District. 

Colorado Democratic Party Chairwoman Morgan Carroll said she was disappointed by the map, arguing the proposed districts advantage the GOP. “While this preliminary plan seems to put a thumb on the scale for Republicans, it is too soon to know how the commissioners will change them,” she said in a statement.

Former DaVita CEO and multimillionaire Kent Thiry, who backed the constitutional amendments that created the independent commissions, also weighed in after the release of the preliminary map.

“These congressional seats belong to the people, not to a political party or interest,” said Thiry. “It’s still early in the process, but it appears the commission is responding to the mandate that it draw competitive districts whenever and wherever possible.”

Redistricting staff also isn’t convinced voter registration and outcomes from the 2018 attorney general race are the best metrics, Barry said. 

“Given the population distribution in Colorado, it is difficult to draw more competitive districts,” Barry said. “When the final data comes out from the Census Bureau, it likely will change, and maybe districts will become more competitive.”

Maximizing political competitiveness also wasn’t a high priority for this draft map, Barry said, as staff is required to meet all the other constitutional requirements first. 

Those constitutional requirements include equal population and adherence to the federal Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voters from gerrymandering. 

The map creates three districts with Hispanic populations of more than 28%: District 1 with 28.6%, District 4 with 31% and District 8 with 29.9%, according to the preliminary data.

Staff also sought to keep rural areas together as much as possible, keep the San Luis Valley in one district and keep Boulder and Fort Collins together “due to the large research institutions in those towns,” Barry said. 

“We should also point out, many times we received conflicting requests under public comments, concerning where some counties should be placed,” he added.

Staff also prioritized keeping entire counties and other political boundaries together over specific “communities of interest,” a term used to describe communities with shared needs and interests. Barry said staff had difficulty identifying the geography of some communities named by members of the public. 

“In this plan, of the 64 counties in the state, 55 are wholly contained within one congressional district,” Barry said.

Staff also acknowledged that comments from certain interest groups influenced their proposal, including the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, which pushed for a district capturing concentrated Hispanic populations in north metro Denver, and Club 20, which called for keeping the entire Western Slope in the same district. 

Colorado’s population grew 14.5% from 2010 to 2020, making it one of six states that will get one or more new congressional seats in 2022 due to population gains. 

Colorado’s seven existing congressional districts are currently represented by four Democrats and three Republicans. 

The map is nonpartisan legislative staff’s initial effort at redrawing the congressional districts, under a 2018 constitutional amendment — Amendment Y — approved by voters. 

“In this plan, of the 64 counties in the state, 55 are wholly contained within one congressional district,” said Barry.

This year marks the first time independent commissions created by Amendment Y and a companion ballot question, Amendment Z, are overseeing the once-a-decade redistricting process in Colorado.

In the past, state lawmakers drew the congressional lines, though they often deadlocked and courts decided on the final districts.

State Sen. Faith Winter, a Westminster Democrat, released a statement after the preliminary map was unveiled appearing to express interest in running for the new seat.

“It’s no surprise to see the initial redistricting map center on Adams County for the new CD8,” Winter wrote. “Not only does this help keep cities and school districts whole, it captures diverse communities of interest and creates a district focused on working class families. This district deserves solutions and federal legislation that could provide action on water, climate change, transportation, economic opportunities and growth. These are the issues that have been top of mind for my constituents in (state Senate District 24).”

Colorado’s Independent Legislative Redistricting Commission will release initial state Senate and state House district maps on June 29.

Both commissions will hold 32 public hearings around the state between July 9 and late August to get feedback on the preliminary maps.

MORE: Colorado’s congressional, legislative redistricting ramps up this summer. Here’s what you need to know to get involved.

Once nonpartisan legislative staff gets the official 2020 Census data on Aug. 16, they will use feedback from the public hearings, as well as comments submitted to the commissions online, to draw a new set of maps. Another set of hearings will be held in each of the state’s seven congressional districts on the updated district maps. 

It’s not clear how different the final population data will be from the estimates used for this preliminary map. 

This year, the Census Bureau is also using a new statistical method for ensuring privacy that would have the largest impact on redistricting at the hyperlocal level. Differential privacy injects random errors into the data to make it harder to identify individuals in small communities. Several states are against its use because it also makes data on small geographic levels, like a single census block, less accurate.

Because it’s the first time the agency has used the privacy method, staff say they don’t know what impact it will have until they have the data in hand. 

Members of the commissions may recommend changes to the maps as well. The commissioners also aren’t required to adopt the staff’s maps. 

“They can choose a map that was drawn by someone completely away from staff or by a commissioner themselves,” Barry said. 

The Colorado Supreme Court must ultimately approve the maps submitted by the two commissions before the end of the year, setting the stage for the 2022 election.