Nguyen Pens Bill to End Legislative Immunity

In a significant move “towards enhancing accountability” among Arizona lawmakers, State Representative Quang Nguyen (R-1) introduced House Concurrent Resolution 2053 (HCR 2053), amending Arizona’s Constitution by eliminating legislative immunity for traffic violations. Nguyen told the Arizona Globe, “There is no reason to have this law in place anymore.”

The Arizona Constitution currently grants legislators immunity from arrest in all cases except treason, felony, and breaches of the peace while the Legislature is in session. Courts have historically interpreted this provision to include protection from certain civil processes, such as traffic citations.

Recent incidents—and the relentless media spin—have placed this long-standing practice under a spotlight.

Nguyen explained to the Globe that he would likely have the most to lose if this law passed. “I travel 186 miles per day to get to the Capitol,” he stated, adding, “this law is not to target anyone specific in the legislature.”

I just want to be a normal person just like the rest of my neighbors. https://t.co/Ui4ZRf5I7w

— Quang Nguyen (@QuangNguyenAZ) February 8, 2025

Legislative immunity has garnered significant negative news coverage recently.

In January 2025, Prescott police cited State Senator Mark Finchem for allegedly driving 48 mph in a 30 mph zone. Invoking legislative immunity, Finchem requested that the citation be “voided and stricken from the record,” emphasizing that the Arizona Legislature was in session at the time. Prescott police acknowledged the legislative immunity provision and moved to dismiss the ticket, noting that the case could be refiled within 180 days after the alleged violation, potentially allowing for prosecution once the legislative session concludes.

The media has relentlessly covered Finchem’s use of privilege, putting his constitutionally protected right under intense scrutiny.

Similarly, in March 2024, former State Senator Justine Wadsack was stopped by Tucson police for allegedly driving 71 mph in a 35-mph zone and failing to provide proof of insurance. Body camera footage of the incident was promptly released to the public, leading to widespread media coverage. Wadsack contended that the immediate release of the footage and the ensuing attention were politically motivated, asserting that she was a victim of “political persecution.”

Wadsack is suing the City of Tucson after being charged with criminal speeding months after a traffic stop where no ticket was issued. Tucson Police (TPD) admitted there was no radar evidence, yet prosecutors filed charges just before her primary election, a move she believes contributed to her loss.

Her attorney, Brad Miller, called the case politically motivated, stating, “Someone put this officer up to signing the complaint knowing they didn’t have the evidence.” He also exposed flaws in TPD’s radar enforcement, saying officers aren’t required to prove their devices work. Miller also told the Globe, “This entire case has been unusual, which is why we are looking into a possible political motivation.”

Wadsack claims she was unfairly targeted. She recounts that when she asked if all legislators get post-session tickets, a police lieutenant responded, “Just you.” She also alleges that her opponent’s campaign had access to body cam footage before she even knew about the charges.

The case against Wadsack was subsequently dismissed.

These incidents have reignited debates about the scope of Arizona’s legislative immunity rules. Critics argue that such provisions can be misused, allowing lawmakers to evade accountability for actions unrelated to their official duties. In response, Representative Nguyen’s resolution seeks to amend the state constitution to exclude traffic violations from legislative immunity protections. “Elected officials should not have special privileges that allow them to break the law without accountability,” Nguyen stated. “The people we serve are expected to follow traffic laws, and legislators should be no different.”

If the resolution passes the Legislature, it will be placed on the ballot for Arizona voters to decide in the next general election. This move aligns with previous calls for reform; in 2019, then-Governor Doug Ducey advocated for voters to determine whether to change Arizona’s legislative immunity provisions.

Nguyen emphasized the importance of lawmakers adhering to the same laws they create and enforce. “No one should be above the rules of the road,” he said. “We are lawmakers, not lawbreakers.”

The concept of legislative immunity in Arizona has its roots in the state’s early history. Originally, this provision was established to protect lawmakers from potential harassment or undue influence, ensuring they could perform their duties without fear of arbitrary arrest or legal intimidation.

Many have expressed concerns that the original intent of the provision is being misapplied, which permits lawmakers to circumvent accountability for actions not directly related to their legislative responsibilities. Critics contend that the era in which a rogue officer could detain an individual, thereby preventing them from participating in a crucial vote, has ended.

Nguyen told the Globe that several law enforcement officials contacted him to thank him because they “just want to be able to do their job.”