Shasta County in California plans to hire Tina Peters, former Colorado county elections clerk released from prison, as elections consultant

Shasta County in northern California is moving toward hiring Tina Peters, the former Colorado county elections clerk who became a leading figure in election-denial activism and who was released from prison, as an elections consultant, The Guardian reported Tuesday. The role would connect Peters with the administration of voting technology and procedures in a county that has drawn national attention for activism over election reliability.

The report said Shasta County’s chief elections official, Clint Curtis, is involved in the plans to bring Peters in as a consultant. Peters would be positioned to advise local election officials on election administration matters, the report said, although it did not specify in its description whether the hire would be subject to a particular contract term, board approval vote, or stated scope of work.

Peters previously served as a Colorado elections clerk in Mesa County, where she was convicted in a criminal case tied to her role in the state’s elections administration. The Guardian described Peters as a “prominent Colorado election denier” and said she had been released from prison, framing her past as part of why her name has remained central in election-denial networks.

The Guardian’s report characterized Shasta County as “a hotbed of activism” tied to efforts that cast doubt on the reliability of voting systems. In that context, Peters’ planned consulting role would place a figure associated with challenging election results and voting-machine integrity issues into a position of advisory influence over local election operations.

Election administration responsibilities in California are split across state and county functions, with counties operating many day-to-day tasks under state oversight. A consultant role of the kind described by the report could affect how local officials communicate about procedures, handle voter-facing workflows, and coordinate with state election authorities, depending on the contract’s defined duties.

Supporters of election-integrity and election-technology scrutiny have argued for greater transparency in election systems and procedures. Critics, including election officials and courts that have rejected election-denial claims, have argued that such skepticism can undermine public confidence and distract from legally required safeguards. Peters’ prior criminal case and her later public profile are likely to remain central points of contention if the county proceeds with the hire.

If Shasta County proceeds, the next steps would likely include formal approval processes under county contracting rules and clarification of the consultant’s specific duties, including whether she would have access to any election systems, security procedures, training content, or internal audit workflows. Because the report described the plan without detailing contract terms, those elements would need to be verified through county records or any publicly posted contracting documents.