How red states should respond to Trump’s conviction

Gone are the days when political bias was checked at the courthouse door. The rule of law has been drained of any meaning. As we’ve seen with the Derek Chauvin trial, the federal prosecutions of January 6 and abortion protesters, and now Donald Trump in Manhattan, a defendant cannot get a fair trial or impartial jury in a blue jurisdiction if he finds himself on the “wrong” side of the political divide. He is guilty by virtue of who he is.

As recently as 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell on corruption charges. The decision was unanimous. Despite the defendant being a prominent Republican politician, even liberal lion Ruth Bader Ginsburg signed off on the court’s ruling that the statutory term “official act” was too broad to rope McDonnell into corruption charges.

Without decisive legislative action by conservative leaders, trials involving political issues in blue cities will be biased and corrupt — even in red states.

Such an outcome appears no longer possible in blue America today. This, more than anything else, is why we need a national divorce. Well, the truth is, we’re already in middle of a national divorce. It’s just very one-sided.

Blue jurisdictions don’t follow the law or the Constitution, and most of their residents are brainwashed into political tribalism. It’s time red states responded in kind.

Red-state governors, attorneys general, and legislative leadership should announce a plan to make their states sanctuaries for people facing political persecution in blue states. Local indictments, like those from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, require state trooper involvement for extradition. A state or a city’s law enforcement officials need permission to arrest and extradite a citizen in another state. That’s why Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced he would not participate in any attempt to extradite Trump. In the end, it didn’t matter. Trump surrendered himself.

Get ready for political persecution

States should convene special sessions in response to the Trump verdict to pass a law granting criminal defendants facing extradition the right to appeal directly to the state’s attorney general by claiming political persecution. If the attorney general determines that the charges are prima facie political or that the law being used by the blue state is unconstitutional, the determination would have the effect of barring any state law enforcement from facilitating the extradition.

Because it won’t stop with Trump. Political persecution is coming. In some states, it’s already here.

Radical Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer last year signed HB 4129, a law that criminalizes intimidation of elected officials. What could possibly be wrong with that? The statute defines “intimidation” based on the perceived feelings of the alleged victim. I’m told out-of-state residents who have sent adversarial emails to Michigan officials have already been targeted under this act. In a sharply divided country, such a law could be used to silence scores of political opponents. It’s a superb example of why a red-state attorney general should be empowered to vacate any extradition based on a plainly unconstitutional law.

Then, of course, red states need to fix their blue city problem.

Fulton County, Georgia, prosecutor Fani Willis charged Trump and 18 others with “racketeering” and “conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome” of the 2020 presidential election. Atlanta is a big blue island in an otherwise red state.

Likewise, Texas is full of large blue cities, notably Austin, where Daniel Perry was convicted of murder in 2023 for defending himself against an armed Black Lives Matter mob surrounding his car. Gov. Greg Abbott pardoned Perry earlier this month, noting that “Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive District Attorney.”

That was a happy outcome, but it shouldn’t be a comforting one. Without decisive legislative action by conservative leaders, trials involving political issues in blue cities will be biased and corrupt — even in red states.

Weeding out bias

Defendants could theoretically assert a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. As a practical matter, however, the courts have made it almost impossible to succeed in a claim of a selective prosecution under the Equal Protection Clause.

With that in mind, red-state legislatures should pass the Political Targeting Prosecution Act, which would give defendants the opportunity to present evidence of political targeting based on animus for the individual’s religious or political beliefs. For example, if defendants could show how no violent BLM or Antifa rioter was charged with obstructing law enforcement during a public disturbance, it would trigger a motion to dismiss based on unequal treatment.

Likewise, states need to make it easier for defendants prosecuted in blue cities to assert political bias among jurors. One way might be to expand the jury pool to rope in the more conservative jurisdictions so that defendants would get a more equitable selection. A defendant should be entitled to a pool of jurors in which at least one-third of members belong to his political party. Otherwise, the guarantee of a right to a jury of one’s peers rings hollow.

In short, we need to make red states as red as blue states are blue. Blue states do whatever they want regardless of the law. It’s time we apply equal and opposing force.