So, you've heard about the race for Texas Attorney General, right? It's heating up, and one candidate, Aaron Reitz, who's got the current AG Ken Paxton's backing, is definitely turning heads. He's not holding back, saying he aims to "destroy the left" if he wins. Now, when a person running for a state's top legal job talks like that, it's not just campaign bluster. It brings up some serious questions about how our laws get applied, what our constitutional rights really mean, and what kind of government Texas might get. It's a big deal for everyone living here, and it makes you think about the rule of law itself. Picture this: It's late 2020. Aaron Reitz, a lawyer who'd spent some time in the Marines and was eager to jump into conservative legal battles, finally gets his dream job at the Texas AG's office. He was excited to join an agency known for taking on the Obama administration with a flurry of lawsuits. But then, right before he's supposed to start, he gets a weird call. Don't show up. Why? Because the top brass, including Jeff Mateer, Paxton's main deputy, had just dropped a bombshell: They reported AG Paxton to the FBI, accusing him of bribery and misusing his office. Now, Reitz knew Mateer and respected him, considering his character "beyond reproach." Paxton, on the other hand, was already dealing with a bunch of legal troubles, from indictments to misconduct probes and personal allegations. His mentors told Reitz to stay clear. But Reitz? He went in anyway. He ended up on Paxton's side, helping to look into those whistleblower claims. He quickly decided Paxton was being unfairly attacked. He told Paxton, "I’m all in here. I’m with you. I think you’ve just been done dirty, dirtier than any politician I can recount, other than Donald Trump." This choice really paid off for Reitz. Paxton, somehow, managed to brush off one scandal after another. He won reelection; survived an impeachment attempt, federal investigations, and a plea deal for securities fraud. Meanwhile, Reitz moved up fast. He led some of Paxton’s highest-profile lawsuits, like the one trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and a whole bunch of challenges against the Biden administration. He even got appointed to the Department of Justice under Trump. Now, with Paxton’s endorsement, he’s looking to become Texas’s next AG. Reitz sees things like a war. For him, the "leftists" are the enemy, and some moderate Republicans are their allies. The courtrooms are the battlegrounds. And the only thing strong enough to stop these "forces of evil" is a powerful Texas AG's office, with him in charge. "Our movement ... requires, more than anything, bold, unafraid leadership to step out in front, lift high the banner and charge into battle," Reitz said. "This is the largest red-state law firm in the country. Texas needs a strong AG. The president needs a strong AG." This kind of talk isn't just strong political rhetoric; it hints at a serious shift in the role of the Attorney General. Legally, the AG is supposed to represent *all* Texans, enforce *all* state laws fairly, and protect the state's interests, regardless of who's in office or what their political leanings are. The idea of using the AG's office as a weapon against a political party raises big concerns about the rule of law. It suggests that legal actions might be based more on political vendettas than on objective interpretations of the law. This could chip away at the public's trust in our legal institutions, making people wonder if justice is truly blind or just another political tool. What does it mean for your rights if the state's chief lawyer views half the population as the enemy? Reitz has said he's ready, from day one, to wage a "civilizational battle with anti-American forces on the left." He's even fantasized about AG staff in "OAG emblazoned windbreakers" raiding public institutions "pushing tranny insanity," running out "Kwanzaa-aligned elements poisoning our state," and launching "counter-jihad" against Muslim groups. He also threatened to revoke the citizenship of House Democratic leader Rep. Gene Wu and made controversial comments about an "invasion" of Indians in Texas. Let's break that down. When an AG candidate talks about "raiding" institutions or "running out" certain groups, that's not just offensive; it has significant constitutional implications. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. Government actions like "raids" need probable cause and search warrants, not just political disagreement. Targeting institutions or groups based on perceived "tranny insanity" or "Kwanzaa-aligned elements" could violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says the government can't deny anyone equal protection under the laws. It also brings up First Amendment concerns about freedom of speech and religion. The government shouldn't target groups for their cultural practices or beliefs; that’s a fundamental freedom in our country. Threatening to revoke a state representative's citizenship raises huge due process questions under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Citizenship is a fundamental right, and it's not something an AG can just cancel on a whim. The process for denaturalization is extremely strict, involves federal courts, and typically requires proof of fraud in obtaining citizenship. A state AG has no power to do this. These statements, especially when coming from someone seeking the state's highest legal office, suggest a willingness to act outside established legal frameworks and even the U.S. Constitution. This sort of talk creates a chilling effect on free expression and association, making people fear that disagreeing with the government could lead to persecution. It impacts public policy by creating an atmosphere of division and distrust, potentially alienating entire communities. Reitz has been very clear: he wants to use the AG's office to push one party's goals and "demolish the other." Sameeha Rizvi, from CAIR Action, a Muslim civil rights group, says this kind of talk just creates fear and division. She's right. An AG who sees their role as purely partisan might neglect cases that don't fit their political agenda, or worse, use state resources to harass political opponents or disfavored groups. Think about the public policy fallout. If the AG's office is focused on "destroying the left," what happens to consumer protection cases that affect everyday Texans, regardless of politics? What about fighting fraud, enforcing environmental laws, or defending state agencies in court when they're sued? These are core functions of the AG, and a highly partisan approach could mean these essential duties get overlooked or weaponized. It could lead to a less efficient, less fair legal system for everyone. Your protection under state law shouldn't depend on your political leanings. Reitz's path to this point really took shape after 9/11, which inspired him to join the Marines. He served in Afghanistan, an experience that reinforced his American identity and led him to law school at the University of Texas. There, he dove into conservative legal circles, even becoming editor-in-chief of the Texas Review of Law & Politics. He saw law as a continuation of his military oath: "To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic." After a short stint in private practice and an unsuccessful run for a House seat, Reitz found his way back into the conservative legal fight. His networking paid off, and despite having only a few years of legal experience, he landed a job at the AG's office. His first day at the AG's office was anything but normal. He was called to meet Brent Webster, the new first assistant, who had just replaced Mateer. Reitz thought he was going to be fired. Instead, he was brought into Paxton's inner circle. Webster allegedly told him, "Paxton likes you and knows that you weren’t involved in any of this stuff. His circle of trust is small right now, but we’ve got to figure out whether what [the former employees are] alleging is true, or false, or what happened." The allegations were serious: abuse of office, bribery, and improper influence, all supposedly to benefit a campaign donor, Nate Paul. Reitz's internal review concluded it was a "coordinated hit job" against Paxton. This decision cemented his loyalty. He described it as "me, Attorney General Paxton and Brent Webster against the world." Just weeks later, Reitz got a big promotion and a $70,000 pay raise, becoming Deputy Attorney General for Legal Strategy. He then helped argue for firing the remaining employees who had reported Paxton. He claimed they were underperforming and "holding the agency hostage." However, four of those whistleblowers later sued Paxton under the Texas Whistleblower Act. Paxton eventually agreed the state would pay them $6.6 million. This whole episode is a textbook example of the legal protections for whistleblowers. The Texas Whistleblower Act is designed to shield public employees from retaliation when they report waste, fraud, or abuse. The fact that the state settled for millions implies the whistleblowers' claims had merit, and Paxton's office, including Reitz's role in the internal investigation and subsequent firings, faced significant legal accountability. It highlights the importance of internal checks and balances and the legal risks of targeting those who report government misconduct. When an AG candidate is involved in actions that lead to a multi-million dollar whistleblower settlement, it raises questions about their judgment and respect for employee rights and public policy regarding government ethics. Reitz was clearly eager for the legal fight. Within months of his promotion, he was in the Oval Office, discussing with then-President Trump how to overturn the 2020 election results by blocking four states from casting electoral votes for Joe Biden. This Texas-led lawsuit was a bold, some would say desperate, move. The U.S. Supreme Court quickly tossed it out, stating Texas didn't have the "standing" (the legal right) to bring the case. Despite losing, this lawsuit set the tone. On Biden's inauguration day, Reitz and his team were already filing the first of over 100 lawsuits against the new administration. Reitz, calling himself "offensive coordinator" to Paxton's "head coach," framed his job as identifying targets – governmental or private – that were acting "unconstitutional or illegal or thwarting law and order or justice." He even boasted about perfecting a "plug and play" model for suing the Biden administration, particularly on immigration. At a Heritage Foundation event, he explained how to turn any new immigration policy into a lawsuit: "‘It’s a disaster’ — that’s your opening paragraph in every lawsuit." He encouraged other state AGs to bring their cases to Texas, where, he claimed, they had "nothing but good courts." This strategy of "lawfare," using lawsuits as a political weapon, has significant implications for the justice system. It can clog up courts with politically motivated cases, diverting judicial resources from other important matters. It also raises questions about judicial impartiality when a state AG openly talks about "good courts" for their agenda. While states certainly have the right to challenge federal actions they believe are unconstitutional, a programmatic "sue first, ask questions later" approach can strain federal-state relations and potentially undermine the cooperative spirit often needed for effective governance. It risks turning legal principles into mere talking points for political gain, impacting how public funds are spent on litigation and the overall efficiency of the legal system. In April 2023, Reitz left his "dream job" at the AG's office to become chief of staff for Senator Ted Cruz. After Trump's 2024 reelection, Reitz was nominated to run the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department. Trump praised him as "a true MAGA attorney" and "a warrior for our Constitution." However, Democrats viewed him differently. During his confirmation hearing, Reitz stated there was "no hard and fast rule" about whether public officials must abide by court orders. Senator Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, called him "a danger to the rule of law" for this stance. This statement alone is a massive red flag in legal circles. The principle that all government officials must obey court orders is fundamental to the rule of law and the separation of powers. Suggesting otherwise undermines the very foundation of our justice system. It implies that an elected official could selectively follow court rulings, which would effectively turn the judiciary into a suggestion box rather than a binding arbiter of legal disputes. This poses a serious public policy threat to governmental stability and respect for judicial authority. Reitz left the DOJ nomination after three months to run for Texas AG, claiming the "cost of replacing me at DOJ was far smaller than the cost of Texas ending up with an unvetted, unproven lightweight as its next Attorney General." Now, with Paxton's official backing, Reitz is positioning himself as an even more intense version of the current AG. He's challenged his opponents, like U.S. Rep. Chip Roy and State Sen. Mayes Middleton, for not being loyal enough to Paxton during his troubles. He's called them "weak, inexperienced and secretly liberal," claiming they'd "screw it up" and not "do justice to the position they are seeking." Reitz's rhetoric about Muslim groups is especially alarming, even compared to other conservative candidates. He's vowed to create a legal environment "so inhospitable that they’ll self-deport or go to jail," because, as he put it, "Jesus Christ — and none other — reigns over this land." This explicitly religious justification for legal action immediately raises serious First Amendment questions, specifically regarding the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion or showing preference to one religion over another. An AG swearing to use their office to punish or expel groups based on their faith is a direct attack on religious freedom. This isn't just a policy choice; it's a potential violation of fundamental constitutional rights and sets a dangerous precedent for religious discrimination by the state. It challenges the very idea of secular governance. He argues he's best suited to continue Paxton's legal fight against CAIR, a Muslim advocacy group that some Republicans accuse of ties to foreign terrorist organizations. Like other groups targeted by Paxton – immigrant-serving nonprofits, voter registration groups, and Democrat-aligned organizations – CAIR has had to spend significant time and money defending itself against these allegations. Rizvi from CAIR Action points out that if these claims aren't holding up in court, it means they're "B.S." and the state is wasting resources. This systematic targeting of specific advocacy groups, especially those representing minority populations, raises concerns about selective enforcement and potential abuse of power. It can chill free speech and association, making it harder for these groups to carry out their legitimate activities. It also questions the efficient use of taxpayer money, if the AG's office is pursuing cases that consistently fail in court due to lack of merit. This is a public policy concern about resource allocation and whether the AG is serving all Texans or just a partisan agenda. Reitz remains undeterred, hoping primary voters will prefer his "Paxton Plus" approach. "I imagine being even more aggressive and energetic than Paxton," he said. "Paxton has been tremendous. I think he’s 10 out of 10, but to use the old Spinal Tap reference, we’re going to turn it up to 11." When you look at Aaron Reitz's candidacy for Texas Attorney General, it's pretty clear he's offering a vision that goes way beyond typical legal enforcement. His promises to "destroy the left" and target specific groups, backed by an openly partisan legal strategy, could radically reshape the AG's office. This isn't just about politics; it's about the very foundation of our legal system – fairness, due process, equal protection, and the separation of powers. Texans should really consider what it means to have an AG who sees their role as a "warrior" against political opponents, rather than a neutral enforcer of the law for everyone. What happens to individual rights when the state's top lawyer pledges to turn it up to 11 on partisan combat? That's the big question for the public policy of our state, and for your rights.