Arizona lawmakers are considering repealing a long-standing constitutional privilege that shields them from arrest for minor offenses, signaling a potential shift toward greater accountability for elected officials.
At a Glance
- Republican Rep. Quang Nguyen is pushing legislation (HCR 2053) to eliminate “legislative immunity” from Arizona’s constitution
- Current law protects lawmakers from arrest for minor offenses during legislative sessions and 15 days before
- Recent incidents of legislators using immunity to avoid speeding tickets have spurred reform efforts
- If approved by the legislature, the constitutional amendment will appear on the 2026 ballot
- Previous attempts to revoke this privilege in 2012 and 2019 were unsuccessful
Lawmakers Pushing for Equal Treatment Under the Law
Arizona legislators are considering a significant constitutional change that would strip them of a privilege many Americans might be surprised to learn exists. The current Arizona constitution provides lawmakers with immunity from arrest for minor infractions during legislative sessions, except in cases of “treason, felony, or breach of the peace.” Republican state Representative Quang Nguyen believes this protection sends the wrong message to constituents.
“I represent people. Why is there an exception for me when I speed or make an illegal left turn,” Rep. Nguyen said.
The proposal, formally known as House Concurrent Resolution 2053, has already cleared the judiciary committee. If it passes the full legislature, the measure would be placed on the 2026 ballot for Arizona voters to decide whether their elected officials should face the same legal consequences as ordinary citizens for minor violations like traffic tickets.
Recent Abuses Highlight Need for Reform
The push for reform comes after several high-profile incidents where lawmakers allegedly invoked their constitutional privilege to evade legal consequences. Arizona State Senator Jake Hoffman and Representative Mark Finchem reportedly attempted to use legislative immunity to avoid speeding tickets. These incidents have reinforced concerns that the privilege, originally intended to protect legislative independence, has evolved into a shield against accountability.
The practice of legislative immunity isn’t unique to Arizona. Forty-five states provide some form of protection for elected officials, with roots dating back to the English Bill of Rights. The privilege was originally designed to shield legislators from monarchs who might use legal intimidation to influence legislative outcomes. Critics argue this historical justification has little relevance in modern democratic governance.
Opposition to Reform Remains
Not all lawmakers support removing the immunity provision. Representatives David Marshall, Khyl Powell, and Alexander Kolodin voted against the bill in committee, arguing that legislative immunity serves an important purpose in maintaining separation of powers. Some believe the privilege should be strengthened rather than eliminated to protect against potential executive overreach.
When questioned about lawmakers using immunity to evade speeding tickets, Kolodin defended the status quo: “At the end of the day the accountability mechanism is our constituents. If our constituents agree with how we use legislative immunity, they’ll continue to vote us in office. If our constituents think we abuse our powers, abuse our privileges, there’s an election every two years.”
