Here’s What You Need to Know
- Arizona lawmakers may lose their immunity from speeding tickets under a proposed voter referendum.
- A resolution to let voters decide the fate of this provision has passed the House with bipartisan support.
- Lawmakers in Arizona are currently protected from arrest, except in extreme cases, while the legislature is in session.
- Some GOP lawmakers have used this law to avoid speeding tickets, sparking accusations of unfair treatment.
Arizona voters might soon have the chance to decide whether state lawmakers should lose their special immunity from speeding tickets while the legislature is in session. This comes after several incidents where GOP lawmakers, including former Secretary of State candidate and state Sen. Mark Finchem, used the law to avoid tickets, claiming they were protected under Arizona’s constitution.
Controversial Immunity Law Sparks Debate
Arizona’s immunity law for lawmakers is part of the state’s constitution. It protects them from arrest and questioning during the legislative session, except in cases of treason, felony, or breach of peace. This protection starts 15 days before the session begins and lasts until it ends.
The law was originally intended to prevent elected officials from being unfairly targeted or detained while doing their jobs. However, critics argue that it creates a double standard, where lawmakers can avoid consequences that ordinary citizens cannot.
Lawmakers’ Actions Draw Criticism
Recently, some GOP lawmakers have taken advantage of this immunity to avoid speeding tickets. For example, Sen. Mark Finchem wrote a letter to a police chief after being pulled over for speeding, suggesting the officer might not be aware of the law. This move sparked outrage and accusations of abuse of power.
Other incidents have drawn attention to the issue. In 2011, a Republican senator claimed immunity after being involved in a domestic dispute, though he later pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge. These cases have fueled debates about fairness in the justice system.
Proposed Changes and Lingering Questions
Rep. Quang Nguyen, a Republican state legislator, introduced a resolution to let voters decide whether to end this immunity during the 2026 midterm elections. The resolution passed the House with support from both Democrats and Republicans, but its fate in the Senate remains uncertain.
Supporters of the immunity argue that it protects lawmakers from political targeting, ensuring they can focus on their duties without fear of harassment. However, opponents believe it gives lawmakers a free pass and undermines public trust in the system.
A Broader Issue of Accountability
This debate isn’t just about speeding tickets—it’s about whether those in power should be held to the same standards as everyone else. President Donald Trump’s use of legal loopholes to avoid criminal charges has brought similar questions to the national stage. When leaders use their status to sidestep consequences, it raises concerns about fairness and equality under the law.
What Happens Next?
If Nguyen’s resolution passes the Senate, Arizona voters will have the final say in 2026. While some lawmakers believe the immunity is necessary, others see it as an outdated privilege that undermines accountability.
The outcome of this debate could set a precedent for other states and spark a wider conversation about the balance of power and fairness in government. For now, the question remains: Should lawmakers be above the law, or should they face the same consequences as the people they represent?