"Let me be clear: I have not accepted any position with the Shasta County Elections Office," Tina Peters wrote in a new statement released Tuesday through her attorney, marking a retreat from an earlier indication that she was interested in helping the county's election efforts.
Tina Peters' statement and legal history
The statement, delivered by attorney Peter Ticktin, said Peters had engaged only in "discussions about ways I might assist with election integrity and ballot-authenticity efforts," and that "no formal role has been accepted." The statement echoed Peters' broader position that her concerns extend to "all 3,114" counties in the United States and center on whether Americans can trust elections are "free, fair and transparent."
The CyberScoop report notes Peters is a former Mesa County election clerk who was convicted on seven felonies tied to the theft of voting machine software. Her prison sentence was cut short by a commutation from Democratic Gov. Jared Polis. Peters has previously said she remains "committed to lawful, transparent election integrity efforts that protect the vote of every American citizen," and she has contested media characterizations of her case, saying "The media continues to mischaracterize my case with words like ‘breaching,’ ‘tampering,’ and similar claims." She also stated, "My charges were not for changing votes, altering election results, or manipulating any election outcome."
Clint Curtis' hiring plan and the pivot to consulting
Shasta County registrar of voters Clint Curtis initially told CyberScoop he intended to hire Peters as an assistant registrar to help with the 2026 elections. Curtis later said his plan had shifted toward bringing Peters on as an outside consultant "without access to sensitive county election systems," and that Peters had not accepted any position. CyberScoop reported that Peters' attorney had earlier pointed to a statement indicating Peters' interest in helping the county.
Audit-ready is a season. It shouldn't be.
Evidence in spreadsheets, controls drifting between audits, frameworks multiplying on flat headcount. Nubivance runs continuous compliance on Rapid7 Cyber GRC - SOC 2, HIPAA, ISO 27001, PCI, CMMC.
End the scrambleLocal and state pushback
The prospective hiring produced an immediate backlash. Shasta County's Board of Supervisors—already having "formally censured Curtis for allegedly abusive verbal behavior toward staff" according to CyberScoop—objected, and Democratic politicians across California criticized the move. The office of Secretary of State Shirley Weber told CyberScoop it was monitoring Shasta County's elections "for compliance with state and federal laws."
Election-security context provided in the report
CyberScoop's coverage places Peters' claims about voting machines against a technical and procedural backdrop in the story. The article notes that Peters "broke into Mesa County’s election office to prove voting machines had shifted votes to Democrat Joe Biden, but data instead confirmed the county’s 2020 vote totals were accurate." It also records that Peters had at one point "expressed written regret to the state for her crimes."
The piece summarizes expert views reported in the article: while experts acknowledge vulnerabilities can exist in U.S. voting machines, longstanding mitigations such as backup paper ballots, post‑election risk‑limiting audits, and decentralized equipment and vendors can manage risks and detect anomalies. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is cited for the figure that nearly 98% of Americans vote on electronic voting machines that include paper backups. Finally, the story observes that despite years of legal challenges and efforts, "neither Peters nor other Trump allies have ever provided credible proof that manipulation of U.S. voting machines, voter fraud or other problems impacted the 2020 presidential election."
How election officials, regulators, and voters are likely to react
- Election officials and county staff: The reported censure of Registrar Clint Curtis by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors and the expressed desire to limit Peters' access to "sensitive county election systems" indicate county leaders and staff will press to maintain operational controls and adhere to statutory access rules.
- State regulators and the Secretary of State’s office: CyberScoop records that Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office said it was monitoring Shasta County for compliance with state and federal laws, suggesting state-level oversight will be attentive to any personnel or procedural changes tied to election administration.
- Voters and the public: Peters’ renewed public statements rejecting some media terminology while asserting that electronic voting machines are inherently untrustworthy will likely keep public scrutiny on how counties balance transparency, access, and security—particularly in light of the CISA statistic that almost 98% of Americans vote on machines with paper backups.
Peters' latest statement narrows her public posture from implied interest in a formal county role to broader claims about national election integrity. The county and state reaction chronicled in the reporting — from a formal censure of the registrar to state monitoring — leaves clear signals about who will decide what oversight and access are appropriate for anyone proposing to work on election systems. CyberScoop's story closes on the unresolved practical matter: whether Peters will participate in any capacity and, if she does, how local and state authorities will define and enforce the limits described in Curtis' revised hiring plan.
