
Arizona lawmakers invoke special immunity for speeding tickets
Writing on his office letterhead, Finchem sought assurances from a police chief that he would be spared from a traffic ticket. He cited a provision in the state constitution that shields lawmakers from certain penalties while the legislature is in session.
'Perhaps the officer is unaware of the law in this regard,' he wrote about his Jan. 25 citation. 'For my part, I was unaware that the stretch of the road I was driving on was 30 MPH … Regardless, under Article 4, Part 2, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, I ask that the citation be voided and stricken from the record.'
The senator was one of three MAGA Republicans in the state pulled over for speeding over the past year who benefited from legislative immunity that either shielded them from punishment or delayed it.
By using the law in their favor, they have sparked debate about the fairness of a constitutionally enshrined justice system that protects those in power from the same type of immediate consequences their constituents face every day. Their moves have been received by some members of their own party and Democrats as evidence they were acting with impunity. Supporters of the immunity provision say it ensures that those in power cannot use the law — even in the form of traffic violations — to target critics.
The debate over Republicans far from Washington using the law for personal benefit comes at a time when President Donald Trump has avoided consequences in his own criminal cases and made sweeping changes across the federal government, including at the FBI, the Department of Justice and independent watchdogs responsible for investigating allegations of wrongdoing.
But a Republican Arizona House member wants to end the two-tiered justice system for traffic scofflaws. Rep. Quang Nguyen has introduced a resolution that would let voters decide during the 2026 midterm election whether lawmakers should continue to be immune from traffic violations while they are in session. The resolution passed the House this month with bipartisan support, but its fate in the Senate is unclear.
'It's important that we don't improperly use our privilege for nonwork-related reasons,' Nguyen said. 'I can tell you with the last three tickets, they were not going to the capitol; they were not doing any work at the capitol. If I get pulled over, I should get the same tickets and pay the same fine as you.'
According to the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures, state constitutions generally grant two categories of immunity to lawmakers: speech or debate and preventing or limiting arrest while legislatures are in session.
The immunity concept originated long ago in the English Bill of Rights as monarchs tried to intimidate lawmakers and was intended to underscore a separation of powers within the government. Lawmakers have invoked the privilege at various times over the years to either delay punishment until after legislative work ends or avoid it altogether.
In 1996, a Virginia Republican state lawmaker invoked the privilege during the legislative session after exposing himself in a Richmond park. He got a charge of indecent exposure against him thrown out, but it was reinstated after the General Assembly adjourned, according to press reports. In 2019, a Democratic lawmaker from West Virginia claimed the privilege and then avoided a misdemeanor charge after he was accused of forcefully opening a door into a capitol employee and elbowing a colleague.
In Arizona, legislators are free from arrest and questioning in all cases except for treason, felony and breach of the peace, starting 15 days before the legislature convenes and lasting throughout the session. In 2011, police said a Republican senator claimed immunity after a fight with his girlfriend; he disputed the allegation, according to press reports. He later pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge.
In 2018, Rep. Paul Mosley (R), invoked immunity after he was stopped for driving 97 mph in a 55 mph zone. He did not get a ticket, and body-camera footage showed him telling a deputy that he sometimes drove up to 140 miles an hour. Mosley was charged with excessive speed after the session ended — and revelations emerged that he had been stopped several other times for speeding over a year-long stretch.
The episode triggered outrage, and then-Gov. Doug Ducey (R) joined Democrats in calling for the immunity provision to be repealed. But it remained and is featured during new member orientation, lawmakers said.
During his orientation before the 2023 session, Sen. Flavio Bravo (D) said presenters highlighted Mosley's speeding proclivities and legislative staffers told lawmakers the privilege 'was not something to abuse,' Bravo recalled.
Nguyen said the privilege was described during his training as a way to make sure members were 'not late for a vote.' In the House, security officials have for decades given stickers to lawmakers who requested them to put on the backs of their driver's licenses or other items, a House spokesperson said. The stickers cite the constitutional immunity language.
Paul Bender, a professor of law and dean emeritus for Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, said the privilege was supposed to protect lawmakers only from missing votes during the session if they got in minor legal trouble.
'The only justifiable reason that I can think of is that they fear prosecutors would be using speeding tickets to try to get lawmakers to do what they want them to do,' Bender said. 'I'm not aware of that happening.'
Last year, during the legislature's session, then-Sen. Justine Wadsack (R) was pulled over by a Tucson police officer who alleged she was 'traveling at a high rate of speed.' The officer reported that she was driving her Tesla 71 mph in a 35 mph zone.
'My name is Sen. Justine Wadsack, and I am racing to get home because I have four miles left on my charger before I'm about to go down,' she told the officer. She added, 'I am a government employee.' After the officer contacted 'our legal adviser it was decided' that Wadsack 'was possibly immune from a violation,' the officer wrote in a report. The officer indicated a citation could be issued in the future.
After the legislature adjourned in June, an officer called Wadsack, records said. She 'argued that she was in fact not speeding,' and 'she refused to meet to sign the citation and said she would not accept it.' According to the records, 'She demanded to speak with the Chief of Police and said that she was under 'political persecution.''
In July, Wadsack was charged with criminal excessive speeding. She claimed without evidence that city officials had targeted her for political reasons: 'Despite the clear legal prohibitions, the Democrat Mayor and Police Chief have decided to use the power of government to prosecute their political opponents,' she wrote in September on X.
Wadsack tried to use legislative immunity to get the charge dismissed. A judge ruled against her, writing that her attorney's 'assertion that members of the legislature freely speed 'all the time'' was disturbing — 'especially in the context of excessive speed.' Wadsack took a defensive driving course, and the case was dismissed in early January. She maintains she was singled out.
'The targeting of Conservative lawmakers we are witnessing, is exactly why Legislative immunity was written into the Constitution the way it was,' she wrote in a statement to The Washington Post. City officials said she was treated like anyone else.
Days after her case ended, Sen. Jake Hoffman (R), founding chair of the legislature's Freedom Caucus, was pulled over on Jan. 22 as he drove home. Hoffman was accused of driving 24 mph over the limit, records said. A state trooper recognized Hoffman, who told The Post he did not invoke immunity or identify himself as a lawmaker until he was asked. He got a warning.
'He will not be issued a citation once the session ends,' Sgt. Eric Andrews said in an email.
Finchem was pulled over three days later in Prescott, about 90 minutes north of Phoenix. He immediately identified himself as a senator and said after he was issued a ticket, 'I'll take it up with legislative counsel.'
Finchem did not respond to a request for comment.
The episodes involving legislative immunity prompted Nguyen to peel his sticker citing the immunity language off of his driver's license and then mount an effort to get rid of the protection. His resolution would put a question on the 2026 general election ballot asking voters whether immunity for traffic violations should be excluded. He said the privilege is being abused: 'I've had enough of it.'
The resolution passed out of the House judiciary committee with bipartisan support, but its future is uncertain, Nguyen and other lawmakers said.
Hoffman, also a national committeeman for the Republican National Committee, said in a written statement that the immunity protects voters as much as anyone.
'In the current era of rampant weaponization of government, including right here in Arizona, legislative immunity serves as a protection for others to ensure that their legislators are not influenced, threatened, intimidated, or coerced in an effort to prevent them from serving their constituents,' he said.
Several lawmakers and legislative staffers said they doubted the bill could muster support in the Senate. One former GOP legislator predicted its fate.
'There's no way it will ever be repealed,' said Mosley, who had bragged years ago of breaking the speed limit. 'It's kind of like a perk or a benefit. That's like saying to legislators, 'Hey, will you take a pay cut?''
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Refinery29
a few seconds ago
- Refinery29
Maybe Sydney Sweeney Is Exactly Who She Appears To Be
The script of the past seven days of discourse has followed the same structure as it always does. The classic problematic campaign meets backlash, followed by outrage at the backlash, to why are we still talking about this? pipeline has been in full effect. Every side is playing its part. The 'woke left' is calling out eugenics-adjacent language masquerading as a silly denim pun in American Eagle's ' Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans ' ad. The far right are hailing Sweeney as their Aryan princess and chastizing anyone who dares to point out that a white blonde-haired, blue-eyed woman saying she has 'good genes' could be interpreted as a racist dogwhistle. The 'it's not that serious' crowd is calling both sides extremist and reactionary. The TikTokers are engagement farming and clout chasing. The social media warriors are fighting on Threads or X or Bluesky or wherever they get their quick takes off these days. Everyone is wrong, and no one is sane. That's the prevailing internet narrative, anyway, that it's all outrage for outrage's sake and Sweeney is just an innocent bystander caught in the crosshairs of the culture war. Cut to the latest (unsurprising) twist: Buzzfeed reported that Sweeney is a registered Republican in the state of Florida as of 2024. She now has a fan in Donald Trump. Not only is deciding to register as a Republican in 2024 a wild choice considering, well — gestures wildly — everything. But 2024 was the year the party doubled down on its anti-immigration rhetoric, which fueled policies that led to ICE ripping people from the streets and tearing families apart. It was the year they continued their war against reproductive rights and trans people. 2024 was the year the Republican Party re-elected Trump, a convicted rapist, racist and criminal, into office. Again. The Republican Party and its members are exactly who they say they are — so why won't anyone believe the same about Sweeney? For the past few years of Sweeney's rise to fame, she's been upheld as a beacon of the anti-woke mob, a symbol of Making America Great Again. Finally, the MAGA purists hailed, a thin, white, blonde woman with big boobs is popular again! As if the incremental push for diversity ever really threatened this beauty standard. Heavy sigh. Sweeney has found herself in the middle of online firestorms before, like when her family threw a MAGA-themed birthday party and she posted photos from the event on Instagram (she vaguely denied that the event was 'political'). For the most part, I agree that we're thinking about Sydney Sweeney entirely too much, and that her burgeoning career hasn't been interesting (or excellent) enough to warrant this much energy. But, like so many celebrities before her, Sweeney's presence has become a stand-in for something greater than herself. Taylor Swift was once the Great White Hope placed on a pedestal by her whiteness alone, but MAGA knocked her off once she spoke out against Trump and encouraged her fans to vote Democrat. ' I agree that we're thinking about Sydney Sweeney entirely too much... her burgeoning career hasn't been interesting (or excellent) enough to warrant this much energy. But, like so many celebrities before her, Sweeney's presence has become a stand-in for something greater than herself. ' Now that Sweeney is their icon, you'd think that if she wasn't aligned with MAGA's views, she'd want to squash those rumors, too. For whatever reason, instead of coming to the obvious conclusion that Sweeney knows exactly what's happening and either agrees with these conservative stances or simply just doesn't care that she's the poster child for white supremacists, I've seen posts and comments trying to explain away Sweeney's involvement in her string of controversies. She only went to Amazon supervillain Jeff Bezos' wedding because he's an investor in her lingerie line! She's only a registered Republican for tax purposes! Her team is picking these ads for her to do and she's too naive to stop them! Ignorance as a virtue is something only white women seem to be afforded. Sweeney is 27-years-old, and has been vocal about how involved she is in the business of her brand and her desire to make money beyond acting. American Eagle's VP of marketing reportedly wrote on LinkedIn that, 'During a Zoom call with Sydney, we asked the question, 'How far do you want to push it?' Without hesitation, she smirked and said, 'Let's push it, I'm game.'' That does not sound like a woman whose team forced her to star in an ad that was unintentionally provocative. That sounds like Sweeney aimed to provoke — gladly and gleefully. It's easy to blame the friend who's 'too woke' (don't get me started on how this word has been stripped of its meaning) for overreacting to an ad American Eagle says was not ill-intentioned. The company released a lackluster statement defending the ad, claiming '[it] is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story.' The Instagram post goes on to say, 'Great jeans look good on everyone.' We could take the company trying to sell more denim (American Eagle's stock has reportedly risen since the backlash) at face value, and pretend alongside them that this was all an innocent misunderstanding. But we're too smart for that. Marketing campaigns go through many checks and balances. There are full teams hired to predict backlash, to gauge potential interpretations and mitigate risk. Once more for the people in the back: Sydney Sweeney and American Eagle knew exactly what they were doing. 'Jeans are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color,' Sweeney says in the ad, reminiscent of another controversial denim commercial starring a then-15-year-old Brooke Shields. Even if people had overlooked the eugenics dogwhistle, I refuse to believe the actress and AE didn't know there would be blowback to the nostalgic reverence of an ad that was criticized for sexualizing a minor. They wanted our outrage. They wanted our attention, by any means necessary. And we've given it to them in spades. Even when the discourse dissipated, right wing commentators still used it for their own agendas. As Doreen St Felix writes for The New Yorker, 'the fawning from conservatives—everyone from Megyn Kelly to J. D. Vance—is reactive, precipitated by the dislike, which, yes, reached a pitch of outrage, but dissipated, fairly quickly I think, into a bored fatigue.' And it is boring to dissect the ad's deliberate attention-seeking. Sweeney is hot, blonde, and better than you. How yawn-inducing. It's what mainstream culture has been selling us for centuries. While I think we should probably be more outraged that Sweeney still speaks in a baby voice and can't enunciate even though articulation is quite literally her job, I also can't ignore the fact that this ad is indicative of the shift we're seeing in Hollywood via America as a whole — away from inclusivity and sensitivity and barreling backwards towards exclusion and division without consequences. Someone who looks like Sydney Sweeney — who, let's be clear, never stopped benefiting from the system — stands to benefit even more from this culture change. It's no wonder she's seemingly leading the charge. '[Sweeney and everyone else involved] certainly know that 'Sydney Sweeney has great jeans,' would resonate at a time when immigrants are openly persecuted by a president who speaks regularly of bloodlines, 'bad genes,' and ' cleaning out' Gaza's Palestinian population. ' Andi Zeisler writes for Salon. Zeisler does a great job of laying out the connection between the history of Nazism, our current political climate, and why it's not absurd to call it out when brands are overtly praising the superiority of stereotypical Eurocentric features. Felix for The New Yorker goes on to mention the talking points of those who have chided anyone who pointed out the ad as propaganda: 'Can't you handle a stupid pun, in other words? To be clear, many of us—the Negroes, the queers, the hairy feminists, et cetera, et cetera—do not react out of a feeling of personal injury, as if the blondeness-as-beauty standard has terrorized us. Whom does that standard terrorize more than white cis women, honestly? We have our own blondes, selling us fantasies.' ' It's unsurprising that, in the age of influencers and cast decisions determined by follower count, a celebrity would emerge that courts controversy and engagement like the industry is her algorithm. ' The white supremacist fantasy transcends race and gender. Another recent ad, starring fellow alleged Trump supporter, The Summer I Turned Pretty actor Gavin Casalegno, also refers to genetics. "Look, I didn't ask to be the king of summer. It just kinda happened," Casalegno says in a Dunkin Donuts commercial. "This tan? Genetics. I just got my color analysis back. Guess what? Golden summer. Literally.' It could be unfortunate timing on Dunkin Donuts' part, and Casalegno, whatever his political affiliation, could actually be the one unwittingly caught in a culture war. Or we can say the quiet part out loud: bragging about white people's genetics in the year 2025 is fucking weird. I don't care what you're promoting. Sweeney is promoting a movie that no one is talking about. It's aptly titled Americana. She got heckled at the premiere. If her strategy is that all press is good press, sure, she and her team can call this cycle a win. She's a marginally talented actor who needs brand deals and virality to stay relevant. It's unsurprising that, in the age of influencers and cast decisions determined by follower count, a celebrity would emerge that courts controversy and engagement like the industry is her algorithm. Sweeney was just spotted (strategically?) singing karaoke with her Euphoria co-star Hunter Schafer, who is openly trans and the greatest fear of the same base who just crowned Sweeney their queen. "Go get 'em Sydney!" Trump wrote on social media yesterday morning. Schafer revealed earlier this year that she was issued a passport with the wrong gender under the Trump administration. Sweeney's coworkers are under attack by her most ardent defenders. Does any of that matter to Sweeney as long as she's booked, busy, and constant conversation fodder? And if the backlash starts to hurt her bottom line, how long before she goes from conservative Barbie to repentant ally? Unlike her marginalized peers, she has the luxury of fucking up, repeatedly. Ultimately, Sweeney's political affiliations are relevant but less important than what her current cultural dominance says about Hollywood — and America itself. We may be taking Sydney Sweeney too seriously… or not seriously enough.


The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
BONDI Orders Grand Jury INVESTIGATION Into Obama Officials Re RUSSIAN Interference CLAIMS
Attorney General Pam Bondi told the Department of Justice to open an investigation into officials from the Obama administration. The investigation will focus on how the administration handled the information about Russian interference in the 2016 election.


The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump touts ruling upholding ID number check for Texas mail-in ballots
President Trump early Tuesday touted an appeals court ruling upholding Texas's requirement that voters to provide a driver's license or other identification number for their mail ballot to be counted. 'THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!! Should be Nationwide!!! President DJT' Trump wrote on Truth Social. A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit unanimously ruled on Monday the requirement does not violate a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevents states from denying a person's right to vote over paperwork errors that are not 'material.' 'The number-matching requirements are obviously designed to confirm that every mail-in voter is indeed who he claims he is. And that is plainly material to determining whether an individual is qualified to vote,' wrote U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho, rejecting the argument. Ho was joined on the panel by U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett, both Trump appointees, and U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Higginbotham, an appointee of former President Reagan. In Texas, voters can vote by mail if they meet certain criteria, like being disabled or age 65 or older. The state's Republican-controlled legislature passed the new check in 2021 as part of a broader election integrity bill, S.B. 1. It requires voters to provide a state identification number or the last four digits of their Social Security number on their mail-in ballot application and ballot envelope. Clerks reject ballots that don't comply. The Biden administration and several civil rights groups filed lawsuits soon after the law's enactment. Texas and the Republican National Committee appealed to the 5th Circuit after U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez Jr. blocked Texas from enforcing the requirement. An appointee of the second former President Bush, Rodriguez ruled that the number-matching requirement violates the Civil Rights Act because it is not material to a voter's eligibility. The 5th Circuit's decision reverses that finding, ruling that the materiality provision only covers voter eligibility determinations and not mail-in ballots. 'The 2021 Act easily complies with the materiality provision in any event,' Ho wrote.