Arizona Debates Ending Legislative Immunity for Minor Offenses: Accountability Shift?

Scales of justice in an empty courtroom.

Arizona’s legislative landscape may soon change if a proposal to abolish legislative immunity for minor offenses gains traction, raising questions about accountability and equality under the law.

Quick Takes

Rep. Quang Nguyen’s bill, HCR 2053, proposes ending legislative immunity for minor offenses.
Currently, Arizona legislators are immune from arrest for all but the most serious offenses during sessions.
The proposal responds to past allegations of misuse, with a focus on traffic violations.
If approved, the measure faces a public vote in 2026.

A Push for Legislative Accountability

Arizona Representative Quang Nguyen has introduced HCR 2053, seeking to amend the state constitution and repeal legislative immunity for minor offenses. This immunity, which has been part of state practice for years, allows lawmakers to avoid arrest for anything other than treason, felonies, or breaches of peace during legislative sessions.

The bill aims to address traffic violations, ensuring that lawmakers adhere to the same laws governing all Arizona residents. Nguyen argues that exceptions for violations such as speeding or illegal turns undermine the rule of law. The judiciary committee has passed the bill endorsing this proposal.

Representative Nguyen advocates for equitable legal standards, stating, “I represent people. Why is there an exception for me when I speed or make an illegal left turn” – Nguyen’s comments emphasize the need for legislators to exemplify law-abiding behavior. The proposal targets historical incidents where lawmakers have applied their immunity to evade penalties for such infractions.

Historical Context and Current Debate

The current immunity provisions are deeply rooted in the United States’ legislative practices and originally derived from the English Bill of Rights, intended to shield lawmakers from executive overreach. However, the modern-day application raises concerns about accountability. Arizona legislators enjoy immunity from civil processes and arrests except in severe cases during legislative sessions, and this privilege extends for 15 days before the assembly convenes.

“We are lawmakers, So, number one, we shouldn’t break laws.” – Republican state Rep. Quang Nguyen

If the proposal succeeds, it represents a significant shift in the state’s legislative accountability framework. Past efforts to rescind or amend these privileges have not succeeded, despite bipartisan support at times. The conversation around this proposal highlights the balance between protecting lawmakers from unjust political retribution and ensuring they remain accountable to the public.

Prospects for Change

Representative Nguyen believes that public support will favor the measure, noting recent cases where three lawmakers attempted to use their immunity to avoid speeding tickets have fueled public scrutiny. These instances prompted Nguyen to argue that it is common sense for lawmakers to abide by the same laws as their constituents.

If it passes the full legislature, the proposed change will go to a public vote in 2026. The measure thus aligns with a broader national conversation on legislative immunity, as it is a widespread practice in the U.S., with 45 states following similar protocols. Through this proposal, Arizona may lead in redefining accountability and transparency within its legislative practices, supporting the argument that lawmakers should not be exempt from the rules they are elected to uphold.