SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
democracy
Critics Warn Polis Commuting Sentence of Tina Peters Sends 'Dangerous Message' Before Midterms
"Reducing her sentence sends the wrong message to those seeking to undermine trust in our elections, and it will do nothing to deter Donald Trump's illegal attacks on Colorado," said US Sen. John Hickenlooper.
May 15, 2026
Top Colorado Democrats and democracy advocates were among those expressing concern on Friday after Democratic Gov. Jared Polis commuted the sentence of Tina Peters, a former county clerk and 2020 election denier backed by President Donald Trump.
"Today, Gov. Polis delivered a victory to every person urging President Trump to seize control of elections in 2026," said Aly Belknap, executive director of the advocacy group Common Cause Colorado, in a statement. "By commuting Tina Peters' sentence, Gov. Polis dealt a massive blow to Colorado's ability to run its own elections and uphold its own judicial system."
"This decision sends a dangerous message that Colorado will tolerate criminal meddling in election systems and equipment when it is done to make a political statement," Belknap warned. "Authoritarians create martyrs out of people like Tina Peters to fuel outrage, mobilize supporters, and excuse lawbreaking in service of their agenda."
"But authoritarians cannot dismantle democracy on their own. They need powerful people to give them consent. Today, Gov. Polis gave President Trump that consent. This is a shameful day for Colorado," she added. "Gov. Polis' decision undermines election security, weakens accountability, and permanently stains his legacy."
Since returning to office last year, Trump has pardoned his supporters who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, fought for access to state voter rolls, said that Republicans "ought to nationalize the voting" in direct defiance of the Constitution, generated fear that he'll have federal agents surround polling sites in November, and even repeatedly suggested that the 2026 elections shouldn't be held at all.
Trump also gave Peters a symbolic federal pardon and pressured Polis—who is term-limited and set to leave office next January—to act on her case. The president was not able to free Peters from her nine-year sentence himself because a jury convicted her of state felonies and misdemeanors for her role in breaching election equipment in 2021.
After the governor's decision, which was announced alongside dozens of other pardons and commutations, and sets up Peters to be released from prison on June 1, the president wrote on his Truth Social platform, "FREE TINA!"
Peters also turned to social media on Friday, thanking Polis, apologizing for her "mistakes," and writing that "upon release, I plan to do my best through legal means to support election integrity and, based on my own personal experiences, to elevate the cause of prison reform."
In an interview with The New York Times, Polis denied trying to placate the president by freeing the former clerk. He said that "she committed a crime; she deserves to be a convicted felon," but "she was given an unusually harsh sentence."
As the newspaper detailed:
The governor's decision came after Mr. Trump cut hundreds of millions of dollars in federal money for Colorado, moved to dismantle a leading climate and weather research center in Boulder, rejected disaster relief for rural counties in the state that had been hammered by floods and fire, and vetoed an urgently needed water pipeline for rural Colorado.
In the interview, Mr. Polis pointed out that Mr. Trump had other grievances against Colorado, such as its mail-in voting system, and said he was not making his commutation decision with the expectation that Mr. Trump would undo his actions against Colorado.
"That's not something I ever considered," he said.
Meanwhile, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold declared that "this clemency grant to Tina Peters is an affront to our democracy, the people of Colorado, and election officials across the country. The governor's actions today will validate and embolden the election denial movement, and leave a dark, dangerous imprint on American democracy for years to come."
US Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) said that "Tina Peters is guilty as sin and a disgrace to Colorado. She tried to undermine Colorado's free and fair election system. When she was caught red-handed, she was prosecuted by a Republican district attorney and rightfully convicted by a jury of her peers. Reducing her sentence sends the wrong message to those seeking to undermine trust in our elections, and it will do nothing to deter Donald Trump's illegal attacks on Colorado. I strongly disagree with this decision."
Fellow US Senate Democrat Michael Bennet, who is running for governor, was similarly critical, saying: "I vehemently disagree with Gov. Polis' decision to commute Tina Peters' sentence. She broke the law, undermined our elections, and was convicted by a jury of her peers. With Trump continuing to attack Colorado, we must stand strong for our institutions and the rule of law."
David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, told Democracy Docket that "it's unfortunate to see the governor of Colorado succumbing to the bullying tactics of election conspiracy theorists. He has thrown state and county election officials, Republicans and Democrats, under the bus after they resisted the corruption Ms. Peters engaged in and withstood attacks for many years as a result."
Even another former Republican clerk—Matt Crane, who's now executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association—sounded the alarm, arguing that "Tina Peters' actions have made life harder, not only for election officials here in Colorado, but make no mistake, for election officials all across the country. Her conduct became a rallying point for election conspiracy movements that fueled hostility and distrust towards the very people responsible for administering free and fair elections."
"Rather than standing with public service servants and defending one of our nation’s most cherished rights, the right to vote, Gov. Polis is bending the knee to the same political forces and conspiracy movements that are actively undermining confidence in our democratic institutions," Crane said. "That choice carries consequences far beyond this single case."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Building a Movement for the Future,' Bernie Sanders Endorses 61 State and Local Progressives
"Our political revolution is a multiracial, multigenerational working-class movement built from the ground up," ready to "fight for the kind of changes our country desperately needs," the senator said.
May 15, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday announced his endorsement of more than five dozen progressives running for local and state political offices across the country, from Arizona and Missouri to Georgia and New Jersey.
"In this pivotal and dangerous moment in our country's history, we need leaders at every level of government who are prepared to take on the billionaire class and fight for working families. We need bold solutions to the crises we face, not tinkering around the edges," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement.
The 84-year-old caucuses with Democrats in the Senate and twice sought the party's presidential nomination, in 2016 and 2020. During those campaigns and since—particularly with the Fighting Oligarchy Tour he launched shortly after Republican President Donald Trump returned to office last year—he has encouraged Americans, especially younger people, to get involved in US politics.
"In the last 15 months, we have recruited over 8,500 Americans to run for office, many of whom are Independents," the senator noted. "Our political revolution is a multiracial, multigenerational working-class movement built from the ground up."
"Today, I am proud to endorse 61 progressives running for state and local office across America," said Sanders. "They will fight for the kind of changes our country desperately needs."
In Arizona, Sanders is supporting Bobby Nichols for Tempe City Council, Analise Ortiz for state Senate District 24, Mariana Sandoval for state House District 23, Brian Garcia for state House District 8, and two candidates for state House District 9: Lorena Austin and Jacob Martinez.
In California, he is backing four state Assembly candidates: Jessie Lopez for District 68, Ada Briceño for District 67, Fatima Iqbal-Zubair for District 65, and Sandra Celedon for District 31. He's also endorsing Joz Sida for Fontana mayor, Marissa Roy for Los Angeles city attorney, and multiple people running for LA City Council: Hugo Soto-Martinez for District 13, Faizah Malik for District 11, Estuardo Mazariegos for District 9, and Eunisses Hernandez for District 1.
In Colorado, he is endorsing Chela Garcia Irlando for state Senate District 34, Gabriel Cervantes for state House District 31, and Tyler Quick for Adams County Commission. In Delaware, Sanders is backing Shay Frisby for state Senate District 5, Adriana Leela Bohm for state Senate District 1, and Rae Krantz for state House District 6.
In Florida, he is supporting Kyandra Darling for state House District 62, and in Georgia, he is backing Ruwa Romman for state Senate District 7. In Iowa, the senator is endorsing India May for state House District 58, Leila Staton for state House District 54, and three Johnson County supervisor candidates: V. Fixmer-Oraiz, Jon Green, and Mandi Remington.
Sanders is also supporting Scott Houldieson for Indiana Senate District 1, Frank Henderson for Kansas House District 6, Robert LeVertis Bell for Kentucky House District 43, Eboni Taylor for Michigan Senate District 3, Justice Horn for the 1st District in Missouri's Jackson County Legislature, Tick Segerblom for Nevada's Clark County Commission, Ali Aljarrah for New Jersey's Passaic County Commission, and Daisy Maldonado for New Mexico's Doña Ana County Commission.
In New York, where Sanders was notably an early supporter of democratic socialist NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani, he is now endorsing three state Senate candidates—Yuh-Line Niou for District 27, Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas for District 13, and, Aber Kawas for District 12—as well as several state Assembly hopefuls: Adam Bojak for District 149, Maurice Brown for District 129, Dan Livingston for District 123, Conrad Blackburn for District 70, Eli Northup for District 69, Illapa Sairitupac for state Assembly District 65, Eon Huntley for District 56, Christian Celeste-Tate for District 54, David Orkin for District 38, Samantha Kattan for District 37, Diana Moreno for District 36, and Shamsul Haque for District 30.
In Pennsylvania, the senator is supporting Mark Pinsley for state Senate District 16, Sierra McNeil for state House District 195, and Brad Chambers for State House District 41. He's also backing David Morales for mayor of Providence, Rhode Island; Julio Salinas for Texas House District 41; and Jaelynn Scott for Washington House District 37. In West Virginia, he's endorsing three state House candidates: Olivia Miller for District 80, Cody Cumpston for District 6, and Dave Cantrell for District 3.
Sanders had previously announced his support for US Senate candidates Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, and Graham Platner in Maine, as well as multiple progressives running for the House of Representatives, including Dr. Adam Hamawy in New Jersey's 12th Congressional District earlier this month.
"We're building a movement for the future," Sanders told The New York Times, which first reported on his new endorsements Friday.
"Our effort is to lead a national movement against Trump's authoritarianism and kleptocracy and unnecessary wars and his contempt for the Constitution," he explained. "But equally important, the American people need an alternative to the Democratic establishment, which is significantly dominated by big-money interests."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Promise of Radical Municipalism in New York City
What kind of power and solidarity is built and transformed in New York City’s municipalist moment will depend on whether or not the remaking of public and civic infrastructures is guided by participatory democracy.
May 15, 2026
It is an inspiring time to be a New Yorker. Over the last year, thousands have been mobilized by a vision for a more just city, where the interests of the people, not the 1%, are at the center of social and economic policies. Driving this vision is a city that is affordable, one where public infrastructures are not indicative of neglect, exclusion or harm, but are life-affirming institutions grounded in principles of participatory democracy: where everyday residents have a direct say over the public policies that govern their lives.
It is a beautiful vision, especially in a city that has long been plagued by corporate and private interests, and one that draws from models of what is termed new or radical municipalism and experiments with mass and co-governance in cities including Barcelona, Jackson, and Porto Alegre, among others.
Distinguishing New York City’s municipalist moment is its political geography: It is a global city, a center of global finance; a metropole in the Global North, at the center of the imperialist core, and the home of Wall Street; and it is an urban center long defined by uneven development and inequity. The city with the highest concentration of wealth in the world runs on a workforce where only 33% of workers have “good jobs” (qualified by living wage pay, full-time, and year-round employment, employer sponsored health insurance, and safe working conditions). Over one-quarter of New Yorkers struggle with poverty, and nearly two-thirds are economically precarious. Adding to this context is intensified fascism, integral to which has been the bipartisan project of what Ruth Wilson Gilmore has termed the anti-state state: The structured expansion of corporate interests and privatization schemes coupled with the shrinkage of the public infrastructures, entitlements, and services alongside the increased entanglement of policing, surveillance, and punishment into nearly every vestige of the public that remains.
Transforming Public and Civic Infrastructures
On one hand, the renewed interest in public infrastructures grounding radical municipalism signals an important turn from neoliberal consumer citizenship, exemplified recently by former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Carmen Farina’s description of parents as the Department of Education’s “clients.” On the other hand, New York’s wealth, part and parcel of its long-standing and structured class- and race-based inequity, presents a real challenge to the reinvigoration of civic and public life, to what kind of power, what kind of public, will be built and transformed—and to what ends. How do we ensure that the promise of a more just city is truly and actively guided (not just informed) by New Yorkers whose experience of the public has long been shaped by histories of organized abandonment (or the intentional divestment of state and private capital that shape particular places), by the harm, exclusion, and violence of the anti-state state?
Often, what people are fighting for is not a “failing school” but rather, a place through which they have grown community and practiced care, where they have made meaning and collective life despite and within state divestment.
The promise of radical municipalism to enliven deliberative spaces that build capacity for protagonism and expand practices of citizenship needs to be guided by what Celina Su understands as epistemic justice, “actively questioning what bodies of knowledge are counted as expert, rational, and valuable.” More than an advisory role, epistemic justice must actively structure deliberative spaces. In its absence, Su notes, deliberative spaces run the risk of perpetuating already existing inequities. The urgency of this approach is captured by the now infamous New York City District 3 CEC (Community Education Council) meeting, when City University of New York Professor Allyson Friedman’s racist remarks, in response to an eighth grade student who was speaking out against their school being closed, were captured by an open mic. As many recognize, Friedman’s remarks are not a unique case, but emblematic of the changing same in the district.
The district, among the most segregated and unequal in the city, is where I have worked with others to build power, organizing, and leadership among low-income families of color for just and equitable public schools. There have been countless occasions in which “concerned parents” broadcast their racism sometimes in official testimony, sometimes in unofficial remarks. Most often, these remarks have not captured headlines. And in that mix (which included CEC, district, Community Board, and school-site meetings) poor and working class families of color were regularly told that they didn’t “understand” or might be “confused” by their own experiences—their own stories—and dismissed. Friedman’s comments implied the same: that the student speaking out against their school being closed simply did not understand (and, according to Friedman’s racist analysis, could not understand) their own circumstances or the value of their school community. Yet students, teachers, parents, and school workers have long recognized and resisted school closures as a mechanism of dispossession, racist violence, encroachment, and displacement. Often, what people are fighting for is not a “failing school” but rather, a place through which they have grown community and practiced care, where they have made meaning and collective life despite and within state divestment.
In our municipalist moment, deliberative spaces need to be reinvigorated and also reassessed. Gianpaolo Baiocchi, Sumathy Kumar, and Celina Su write that New York City has an extensive infrastructure for civic participation (which includes CECs, community boards, the Civic Engagement Commission, and more). However, they assess, “much of it is shallow, uncoordinated, fragmented, and symbolic. New Yorkers are rightly skeptical of consultations that go nowhere.” They note the need for an audit of such structures with a goal of repurposing and revitalization, guided by the knowledge and experience of community organizers and organizations. As such, the question raised by the winter meeting that went viral is not only if such remarks should be tolerated, but rather, how to intentionally transform the CEC and other infrastructures that are supposed to enliven participatory democracy from places that too often confirm and perpetuate inequity into places where the long-standing violence enacted by austerity and mechanized through school closures is interrupted. To do so, the voices, experiences, and analyses of those who have experienced such violence need to be active, understood as credible, and prioritized.
Epistemic Justice, The Presence of Abolition, and the Remaking of Social Relations
The transformation of our public and civic infrastructures requires both deep local knowledge and an understanding that such spaces are not static. Bonnie Honig reminds us that public things—libraries, schools, healthcare, and housing—as well as civic infrastructures through which they are governed, are “holding environments.” That is, they are simultaneously containers through which life is reproduced in the everyday (including making sure that all students have warm winter coats, that access to ultrasound mammograms is universal, and that lighting and heat work in public and subsidized housing) and spaces of contestation over what democracy, citizenship, and our social relations—not yet determined—might be.
These holding environments have been contradictory at best. More often, they have been vehicles through which the silencing, exclusion, and disenfranchisement that liberalism relies upon are administered, and where scarcity engenders social relations of competition and individuation, where it is assumed that one’s needs are only confirmed in opposition to the security of others.
Radical municipalism offers the promise to shift that configuration, and actualize Ruth Wilson Gilmore’s insight that “abolition is not absence, it is presence.” This insight directs us to the need not just to dismantle, but to build practices, structures, institutions, and experiments that affirm life. The perspectives of structurally marginalized communities are essential to determining what kind of presence is necessary: to mapping not only how harm works, but also to what kinds of alternatives are needed and might be capable of transforming our social relations.
A good example of why this is true comes from Communities United for Police Reform (CPR) and the Public Science Project’s (CUNY) report, We Deserve to Be Safe. Rooted in Participatory Action-Research (PAR), the project’s leadership team included CPR member-led organizations in over-policed communities, was grounded in long-standing relationships and an understanding of the multi-layered harms of policing, and anchored by the shared principle that highly policed communities need to be at the center of how safety and harm are understood and re-imagined. As they note:
Our findings illuminate that people in highly policed New York neighborhoods often hold deeply complex beliefs, attitudes and proposals for community safety, supporting this report’s approach of presenting data about the multiple truths that communities hold. Notably, our findings suggest that while police officers have provided moments of successful intervention and important services for New Yorkers, for many respondents the police are also a constant threat to safety.
The perspectives and findings outlined by the report provide insight that, as the authors note, reach beyond an “overly simplistic duality of either decreased policing and lawlessness or increased policing and safety.” The stories and experiences outlined make painfully clear the violence of policing while also centering participants' complex personhood not simply as anecdote, but as analysis and insight to understanding what kinds of alternatives to policing—informed by place-based histories and realities—might actually be transformative. Bound up in the stories that the report documents is the sobering reality that understanding what “successful interventions and important services” have actually meant is integral to disentangling policing with the provision of social services.
Examples of radical municipalism in other cities show the meeting of our material and everyday needs is deeply connected to the transformation of our social relations, rooted in structures and practices that expand (rather than shrink) how we understand ourselves in relationship to one another, and how we value life, its reproduction, and sustainability. Drawing on her work with the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra or Landless Workers' Movement (MST), Rebecca Tarlau terms this process contentious co-governance which “is not simply [about] more resources or policy changes but, rather, the prefiguration of alternative social and economic relations within… public institutions.” Importantly, in the case of the MST, Tarlau finds that prefiguration need not be outside of the state and that participation is not simply a means to an end, but rather invokes practices that expand and transform social relations through and within public and civic infrastructures, while also strengthening social movements.
New York City’s political geography—as a global city, as a metropole in the Global North and center of the imperialist core, and as an urban center long defined by uneven development and inequity—matters to how we navigate our current conjuncture. Chaumtoli Haq reminds us that in the context of the global city, radical municipalism presents a “powerful strategy for change… [that] enables communities, given their proximity to local governance, to mobilize for changes in law and policy.”
The strength of this strategy has already been demonstrated by the historic campaign to elect Zohran Mamdani as mayor. Rooted in strong partnerships with grassroots organizations including CAAAV Voice, DRUM Beats, and New York City Communities for Change, the material conditions of these organizations’ members shaped the policy platforms of the campaign. What kind of power and solidarity is built and transformed in New York City’s municipalist moment will depend on whether or not the remaking of public and civic infrastructures is guided by participatory democracy and deliberative spaces that are grounded in epistemic justice and contentious cogovernance: whose knowledge, experience, and know-how actively shapes those processes; what kind of protagonism and popular shared analysis propels momentum and movement; and what kinds of social relations are enlivened to expand political horizons and protracted struggle.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular