Tina Peters Findings in Mesa County Are Still Ignored and Covered-Up
Guest Post by Martel Maxim
On June 7, a banner tow plane flew over the Santa Monica area with the message “STOP THE STEAL! HELP US TRUMP!”. That display pointed to a larger and unresolved issue: the case of Tina Peters, who was found guilty on October 3, 2024, and later sentenced to nine years in prison. Tina’s prosecution was not a punishment for wrongdoing, but for trying to expose serious problems in the election system.
Peters had nothing to apologize for and no lesson to learn. The real lesson belongs to the country. As a result of Peters whistleblowing on what she found after the election, documents were created on how elections can be manipulated through a broad technological and administrative infrastructure. The Mesa Reports 1–3 discuss these claims, even though Judge Barrett dismissed them at sentencing as “snake oil” and “junk science.”
The more significant problem is not simply disagreement over those findings, but a refusal by federal oversight officials and other authorities to seriously engage with them. That lack of attention has allowed the systems Peters challenged in 2021 to remain in place years later. The same pattern can now be seen in major races in Los Angeles and California, where unresolved concerns about election integrity continue to shape public distrust.
Anyone who reviews the reports carefully would come away deeply skeptical of electronic voting systems. That skepticism extends beyond voting machines alone and includes servers, proprietary software, artificial intelligence, communication networks, and the analysts and operators who manage them. These tools can be used to calculate and introduce whatever level of fraudulent ballots is needed to produce a predetermined winner, leaving elected officials indebted to the forces that put them in office rather than accountable to voters.
This is presented as a central reason for the nation’s current political crisis and as a warning ahead of the 2026 midterms. In this telling, the digital age has made election manipulation faster, broader, and easier to conceal, allowing a small number of people to influence outcomes on a massive scale. The controversies surrounding prominent races in Los Angeles and California are offered as current examples of that larger danger.
Those driving this system no longer care whether the manipulation appears obvious, because maintaining control over high-profile races is too important to their broader agenda. Much of today’s turmoil could have been avoided if Peters’ findings had been treated seriously from the beginning, rather than dismissed while she herself was sent to prison.
Because that reckoning never happened, the country is once again left trying to patch over a much deeper problem. Election fraud is described as an ongoing wound that has never been properly treated at its source. From that perspective, disputed outcomes in the 2020 presidential race, the Katie Hobbs race, and many other contests for federal, state, and judicial offices all point to a systemic issue that the country has still failed to confront directly.
Instead of addressing that root problem, political organizations continue to promote tactical workarounds such as early voting efforts, ballot chasing, and expanded door knocking. No amount of traditional ground effort can defeat a process that is allegedly engineered to produce a preferred outcome.
California gubernatorial candidate Lewis Herms is presented as one of the few public figures who understands the full scope of the problem. His recent call to action is highlighted as an attempt to restore some measure of public control in what is portrayed as a deliberately chaotic election environment shaped by computerized systems. The image below is presented as the headline for that appeal.
If officials and the public had taken Peters’ claims seriously years ago, the country would not still be dealing with the same accusations of election manipulation today.