House Lawmakers Acknowledge Police Bias Yet Approve Speeding Ticket Immunity

Arizona voters may soon have the opportunity to determine whether state lawmakers should retain their current protections against traffic citations. This prospect follows a House vote that resulted in the passage of HCR2053, despite opposition from about one-third of the state representatives.

Republican Rep. Rachel Keshel of Tucson argued against the public vote, claiming that removing what is often referred to as “legislative immunity” could allow a governor to impede lawmakers from reaching the Capitol to fulfill their duties.

Supporters, however, have propelled the measure to the Senate, although its fate remains uncertain. Senate President Warren Petersen will decide on which committee will review the proposal, a choice that could significantly impact its progress. Petersen has not responded to inquiries regarding the matter.

Should the Senate approve the measure, it would ultimately be placed before voters in the 2026 election.

The issue stems from a provision in the Arizona Constitution that grants lawmakers immunity from arrest except in cases of treason, felony, or breach of peace, effectively shielding them from civil lawsuits during specific legislative periods. Controversy has arisen due to instances where lawmakers, caught speeding, claimed this immunity.

Notably, former Senator Justine Wadsack told Tucson police she could not be cited for speeding because of her legislative immunity. While she received a ticket post-session, she managed to dismiss it through traffic school. Similarly, Senator Mark Finchem faces potential citation after asserting his immunity to a Prescott officer.

Moreover, Senator Jake Hoffman escaped a citation for speeding after a trooper recognized him as a legislator, raising concerns about the effectiveness of current protections.

Rep. Quang Nguyen advocates for amending the constitutional provision to specify that all traffic violations would fall outside of the immunity protections. Keshel disagrees, asserting that eliminating immunity could enable political manipulation against lawmakers.

Nguyen rebuffed Keshel’s assertions, emphasizing that suggesting law enforcement could be used as tools against legislators insults police integrity. He argued that being stopped en route to vote adds unnecessary pressure on lawmakers, particularly those commuting long distances.

In a broader context, Rep. Walt Blackman highlighted the need for lawmakers to exemplify lawful behavior if they wish to maintain their leadership positions. He questioned whether lawmakers consider themselves above the laws they enact.

Rep. Lauren Hendrix cautioned against framing the issue as one of legislative immunity, clarifying that the constitutional provision merely provides privileges for lawmakers. He characterized these privileges as protections intended to ensure representatives can conduct their duties without undue hindrance.

Additionally, Hendrix expressed skepticism about the integrity of law enforcement, drawing analogies from high-profile cases involving political figures. He pointed out the complexity surrounding perceptions of justice and accountability within the legal system.

Rep. Kevin Volk acknowledged the original intent behind the constitutional provision but noted that constituents express frustration regarding perceived disparities between elected officials and ordinary citizens.