Legislative immunity under scrutiny in Arizona after speeding ticket dispute

UPDATED: Feb 16, 2025 00:56 IST

PHOENIX: When a police officer cited Arizona state Sen. Mark Finchem for speeding, he had little to worry about.

That’s because the Arizona Constitution shields lawmakers from civil processes and arrests for anything but treason, felonies, or breaches of peace during legislative sessions and the 15 days prior. Legislative immunity exists in most states, allowing lawmakers to avoid lawsuits and minor infractions, including traffic tickets.

Legal experts say this privilege, rooted in the English Bill of Rights, was originally intended to prevent monarchs from intimidating legislators. Over the years, it has been invoked in various scenarios—some more controversial than others.

In 2019, a West Virginia politician cited immunity after a violent outburst. In 2022, a Wisconsin lawmaker attempted to avoid a subpoena regarding a conversation with former President Donald Trump about overturning the 2020 election. Last year, legislative immunity shielded Kansas lawmakers who falsely accused a man on social media of being involved in the Kansas City Chiefs’ Super Bowl victory shooting.

However, not all Arizona legislators support the immunity perk. Republican Rep. Quang Nguyen has introduced a resolution to eliminate it for traffic violations. If passed, the measure will appear on the 2026 ballot for voters.

“The people we serve are expected to follow traffic laws, and legislators should be no different,” Nguyen said. “If a lawmaker is caught speeding or running a red light, they should face the same consequences as everyone else.”

Nguyen represents a district two hours north of Phoenix, which includes Prescott—the same district where Finchem was cited. The senator was pulled over for driving 48 mph (77 kph) in a 30 mph (48 kph) zone.

Two days later, Finchem wrote to Prescott’s police chief, requesting the citation be “voided and stricken from the record.” The ticket was dismissed on Feb. 4, without prejudice—meaning it could still be refiled. Finchem declined to comment through a spokesperson.

Legislative immunity generally falls into two categories: protection for speech and debate, and protection from arrest related to legislative service, according to the nonpartisan Conference of State Legislatures.

Across the U.S., 43 states provide immunity for legislative speech and debate, while 45 states offer protection from arrest. However, specific provisions vary. For example, New Mexico limits immunity to travel to and from the Legislature, whereas Arizona has no such restriction.

Members of Congress also have legislative immunity, though courts have interpreted it narrowly. Former U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez attempted to use it in his bribery case last year but was ultimately sentenced to 11 years in prison.

More recently, U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina cited the “speech and debate” clause to shield herself from potential civil lawsuits after accusing her ex-fiancé of assault and other crimes on the House floor.

Arizona’s history with legislative immunity isn’t new. In 2012, state Sen. Scott Bundgaard invoked it after a violent domestic dispute on a Phoenix freeway. Police allowed Bundgaard to leave, while his girlfriend spent the night in jail. He was later prosecuted and pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor.

In 2018, state Rep. Paul Mosely was caught on camera bragging to a sheriff’s deputy about driving 140 mph (225 kph). Though he later apologized, Finchem, then serving in the House, filed an ethics complaint against him.

As Arizona debates the future of legislative immunity, Nguyen’s proposal could be the first step toward holding lawmakers accountable for traffic violations.

(Source: Associated Press)