Arizona’s Plan to Tackle Minor Offense Immunity for Lawmakers

Scales of justice in an empty courtroom.

Arizona is on the brink of a pivotal decision that could reshape the accountability of its legislators, leaving many curious about the outcome.

Key Takeaways

Arizona Rep. Quang Nguyen proposes ending legislative immunity for minor offenses during sessions.
Current immunity shields lawmakers from arrest except in cases of treason, felony, or breach of peace.
If approved, the proposal will be on the 2026 ballot for a public vote.
The proposal reflects a common-sense approach ensuring lawmakers abide by the same laws as citizens.
Opponents argue immunity is necessary to prevent executive overreach.

A Call for Accountability

Republican State Representative Quang Nguyen has introduced House Concurrent Resolution 2053, seeking to revoke legislative immunity for minor offenses, such as traffic violations, during legislative sessions. The proposal aims to amend the Arizona state constitution, which currently grants immunity from arrest except in serious cases like treason or a felony. Nguyen emphasizes that lawmakers should not be treated differently from the general public in these matters.

Arizona lawmakers currently enjoy protection from civil processes and arrest during sessions, as stipulated by the state constitution. This immunity also extends for 15 days before the session begins. Although this practice is prevalent in 45 states across the U.S., it’s becoming a topic of debate due to instances where legislators have avoided penalties for minor infractions.

Historical Context and Legislative Battle

Originally rooted in the English Bill of Rights to protect lawmakers from monarchic control, this privilege has seen numerous challenges. Previous attempts to revoke legislative immunity in Arizona have failed, including efforts by Democrat Rep. Steve Gallardo in 2012 and Republican Governor Doug Ducey in 2019. Yet Nguyen believes the timing and intent of his proposal align with public sentiment that rejects preferential treatment for lawmakers.

Rep. Nguyen states, “I think it’s common sense. We need to represent the people and live under the same laws.”

This legislation, already passed by the judiciary committee, will only become effective after voter approval as it necessitates a constitutional amendment. Nguyen’s initiative comes on the heels of three lawmakers allegedly using their immunity to avoid speeding tickets over the last year. However, Nguyen clarifies that the proposal isn’t a response to any specific incident, but rather a step towards fairness and accountability.

Opposing Views

Notably, some representatives oppose the bill, arguing that legislative immunity protects lawmakers from potential misuse of power by the executive branch. Rep. Alexander Kolodin points out, “Recent history has shown that the executive branch continues to use its ability to enforce the law as a weapon against legislators it does not like.” Opponents see the immunity as a shield against external pressures that could disrupt legislative duties.

“Recent history of this state and frankly, this Legislature has shown that the executive branch continues to use its ability to enforce the law as a weapon against legislators that it does not like or care for. This is a time to be strengthening legislative immunity.” – Alexander Kolodin

The upcoming decision in 2026 will determine whether legislative immunity for minor offenses remains or is cast aside in the name of transparency and accountability. Lawmakers like Nguyen contend this change represents a necessary evolution in public policy, ensuring legislators are not perceived as being above the law.