Ah, election season in the Hub City. That magical time of year when the wind blows at 50 mph, the dirt coats your lungs, and local candidates remind us that they’ve never actually read the U.S. Constitution. Today’s contestant in the “I Make My Own Reality” sweepstakes is Jim Baxa, a man running for Lubbock County Clerk who thinks the Supreme Court is basically just a group of nine people with really expensive hobbyist robes.
During a recent forum, Baxa—the self-proclaimed “real conservative” in a race against two women who apparently have the audacity to “follow the law”—clarified his stance on same-sex marriage. While his opponents, Sandy Garcia and Rebeca Gonzales, gave boring, adult answers about “oaths” and “duty,” Baxa explained that he would personally refuse to sign marriage certificates for same-sex couples. Why? Because he’s under “duress” from the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. Poor guy. It must be exhausting being oppressed by other people’s paperwork.
Baxa’s legal theory is a spicy West Texas blend of “The 10th Amendment” and “Because I Said So.” He argues that federal courts don’t actually have the power to decide what’s constitutional—a take so hot it would make Marbury and Madison roll over in their graves. According to Jim, the Texas Constitution is the ultimate “I Win” button, and the U.S. Supreme Court is just a suggestion box that he’s choosing to ignore.
But don’t worry, he’s not a total buzzkill. He won’t stop his future employees from signing the licenses; he’ll just leave it to their “consciences.” It’s the ultimate leadership move: “I’m too holy to do the job I’m being paid for, but feel free to let the ‘low-level clerks’ handle the sinning.” Meanwhile, his opponents are pointing out that he doesn’t seem to know how the office budget works or how many people actually work there, but who needs math and administrative competence when you have a direct line to the “true” interpretation of the law?
If Jim wins, can we also opt out of paying property taxes under “duress,” or is that a privilege reserved for people who think the 1800s were the peak of legal scholarship?