Former Mesa County, Colorado election clerk Tina Peters remained unapologetic in her first public interview since her prison sentence was commuted, reiterating many of the same conspiratorial beliefs about elections while vowing to recover her health and fight on in court to have her criminal record expunged.

In an interview with former Trump campaign manager and White House official Steve Bannon, Peters called it a “miracle” that Democratic Governor Polis commuted her sentence and defended him from “the horrible media and haters” who were critical of the move.

Peters said those critics “don’t go after murderers and people like that [Polis] chose to pardon but they go after me, so there is a concern there for my well-being and my safety.”

Although Polis has said that Peters expressed contrition for her crimes prior to the commutation, she complained in her interview with Bannon that the Colorado governor had refused to issue her a full pardon that would remove the conviction from her criminal record, vowing to continue to “fight” the matter in court using leftover legal funds.

“Even though Governor Polis reduced my sentence from nine years to four and a half years, I still have a fight to clear my name and bring the truth of why they came after me the way they did,” Peters said.

Peters was convicted of seven felonies and sentenced to nine years in prison for stealing another person’s identity and using it to break into Mesa County election facilities, turn off the cameras and take voting system data.

Polis’ commutation of Peters sentence, which came after two years of relentless pressure from Trump, was met with cheers from conservative allies and bitter criticism from members of his own party.

The Colorado Democratic Party censured Polis and banned him from participating in future state party events. Incumbent Senator Michael Bennet, D-Colo., is running to succeed Polis as the Democratic candidate for governor this year, potentially putting him in position to appoint his own successor in the Senate. 

In an interview with CNN, Bennet called the commutation a “terrible decision” and that after announcing it Polis called him to say he would not be interested in the job.

Bennet wasn’t surprised.

“I viewed the decision that he made with respect to Tina Peters as disqualifying, and I think he knows that,” Bennet said.

Following the commutation, Polis has defended his decision, claiming Peters was being punished holding incorrect but constitutionally protected beliefs about election fraud that were unrelated to her actual crimes. He recently showed up to a virtual gathering of Colorado Democrats wearing a piece of tape over his mouth and has predicted the commutation will be looked upon “fondly” in the future.

Reached for comment, Polis’ press office referred CyberScoop to a previous May 15 Facebook post by the governor announcing Peters’ commutation and a follow up Substack blog he posted on Sunday defending the decision.

In his Substack, Polis said he believes Peters committed “real crimes” and deserved her conviction, but also argued that her sentence had become disconnected from her crimes. He pointed to a Colorado Court of Appeals hearing last month that upheld her conviction but ordered her to be resentenced in court as evidence that her sentence was lengthened for her First Amendment protected beliefs.

“Tina Peters should be punished for what she did,” Polis wrote. “She should not receive additional punishment for what she believed or said.” Still trying to figure out what that would look

But many election officials have also publicly stated that Peters committed serious felonies, remains unrepentant for her actions, and that her conspiratorial beliefs played a direct role in motivating her crimes.

The post Tina Peters, convicted in election-security breach, emerges defiant and vows legal fight appeared first on CyberScoop.

OpenAI on Wednesday hailed its plans to safeguard information and aid cybersecurity defenders in the 2026 midterm elections, including work to combat deepfakes and other forms of artificial intelligence misuse. 

The announcement builds on commitments from major tech companies in 2024, including OpenAI, to protect elections from AI-infused election interference — efforts that some thought weren’t enough. Government agencies, non-governmental institutes and others have increasingly warned about AI’s ability to have a negative impact on elections even as they advertise its potential for good.

OpenAI’s plan has five planks: spreading reliable information about voting and election results, helping with cybersecurity, watermarking deepfakes, enforcing policies that ban users from deploying its tools for election interference, and weeding out political bias in its models.

OpenAI highlighted that it has made its Codex Security agentic framework and Trusted Access for Cyber framework available to election officials, and was briefing the National Association of Secretaries of State and the National Association of State Election Directors on its tools.

“This is an important moment for cyber defenders across industries, and we believe AI plays a critical role in hardening digital infrastructure — including systems that support elections,” the company said. “OpenAI is committed to building resilience across the infrastructure stack, including in ways that support election execution.”

Some elements of OpenAI’s plans aren’t new so much as it’s taking pieces from other announcements and putting them together in one, such as reiterating last week’s partnership with SynthID to add watermarks to images generated with ChatGPT to assist in evaluating whether something is real or a deepfake.

One new element of Wednesday’s announcement is that OpenAI has struck a partnership with the Associated Press on sharing election data.

One election security expert welcomed the OpenAI announcement.

“Given the prevalence and amplification of disinformation about our elections, sometimes coming from leaders in high office, it’s always a good thing when platforms and services embrace their obligation to deliver accurate information to users,” David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, told CyberScoop. “It appears OpenAI is doing that with this announcement. I hope other platforms embrace this responsibility as well.”

The post OpenAI heralds cybersecurity, election interference safeguard plans for 2026 midterms appeared first on CyberScoop.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday that purports to limit mail-in voting, though critics say the move will almost certainly be challenged in court on constitutional grounds.

The order instructs the Homeland Security secretary, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to compile lists of American voters for each state, including their supposed citizenship status.

To build the lists, the agencies would rely on the controversial Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements database that DHS has been building under the Trump administration, as well as Social Security and federal citizenship and naturalization records.

Those lists would then be transmitted to states, most of which have already rejected previous Trump administration efforts to collect voter data or dictate voter registration lists. The White House order instructs the Department of Justice to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of state and local officials or any others involved in the administration of federal elections who issue federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a federal election.  

The order also directs the postmaster general to issue new proposed regulations that require mail-in ballots to be mailed in special envelopes that include barcodes for tracking. Crucially, it asks states ahead of time whether they intend to submit a list of voters eligible to vote by mail, and attempts to assert the authority to deny sending ballots to states that do not participate. It also claims the attorney general is entitled to withhold federal funding from noncompliant states.

The Trump administration’s previous efforts to aggressively assert executive branch authority over elections have been rebuffed by courts, with judges noting the U.S. Constitution explicitly empowers states and Congress to set the time, manner and place for elections. 

The order justifies White House involvement by claiming it has “an unavoidable duty” under Article II of the Constitution to maintain confidence in election outcomes by preventing violations of criminal law. But numerous post-election audits, investigations and recounts have consistently confirmed over decades that criminal non-citizen voting is infinitesimally rare in U.S. elections, and for the small number that did, most turn out to be accidents or decades-old administrative errors.

Criticism from election officials, experts and Democrats in Congress was swift.

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, who has resisted demands by the DOJ to hand over state voter data, predicted the order “will meet the same fate” as previous executive orders in being struck down by courts. Other secretaries of state have issued similar statements rejecting the order’s constitutionality. 

“Our office has helped stop his actions before and we are now exploring our legal options to stop this new order from taking effect,” Simon said in a statement to CyberScoop.

He also stumped for mail-in voting, calling it a secure, trustworthy and convenient way for citizens to exercise their rights to vote. Local election officials “track every ballot” sent by mail and have a range of checks and safeguards to ensure they’re sent to only eligible voters and that voters can only cast one ballot.

“Absentee voters who choose to vote by mail must provide a matching ID number, sign their signature envelope, and have a witness sign their ballot envelope before returning their ballot,” Simon said. “All of that information is tracked digitally by election administrators. Voters are able to track the status of their ballot using our online ballot tracker tool. Any attempt to register or cast a ballot while ineligible is referred for investigation and potential prosecution.”

Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., called the order a “blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power” and said he expected “immediate” lawsuits challenging its legality.

“The President and the Department of Homeland Security have no authority to commandeer federal elections or direct the independent Postal Service to undermine mail and absentee voting that nearly 50 million Americans relied on in 2024,” Padilla said in a statement. “A decade of lies about election fraud does not change the Constitution.”

David Becker, executive director for the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said the administration’s latest mandates are so far outside the constitutional limits of the executive branch they will almost certainly be halted through lawsuits. 

“Some may freak out about this, but honestly, this is hilarious,” Becker wrote on Bluesky. “It’s clearly unconstitutional, will be blocked immediately, and the only thing it will accomplish is to make liberal lawyers wealthier. He might as well sign an EO banning gravity.”

However, while lower courts have consistently struck down previous orders and lawsuits from the White House, election experts have expressed concerns that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority — which has clashed with lower courts over the Trump administration’s constitutional authority — appeared receptive to the administration’s position in a recent oral argument.

Alexandra Chandler, director of the Free and Fair Elections program at nonprofit Protect Democracy, said in a statement that the White House order “is more like an attempted executive override” of state authority over elections.

“Meant to solve for a problem that exists only in the false rhetoric of the Trump administration and its political fortunes, the [order] is a classic example of their playbook to deceive the American people and disrupt the election process in order to deny any future results that don’t suit them,” Chandler said.

The post White House executive order purports to limit mail-in voting, mandate federal voter lists  appeared first on CyberScoop.