Latest news with #EnglishBillofRights
Vox
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Vox
Trump quietly claimed a power even King George wasn't allowed to have
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers ideology and challenges to democracy, both at home and abroad. His book on democracy,, was published 0n July 16. You can purchase it here. Just before the July Fourth holiday, we learned that President Donald Trump secretly claimed a power so dangerous that even King George was prohibited from using it. The claim came in a series of identical letters that Attorney General Pam Bondi sent to 10 leading tech companies on April 5 — each instructing the company to ignore Congress's law effectively banning TikTok in the United States. The letters, released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, consist mostly of weakly argued claims about why companies do not have to stop hosting TikTok on their platforms (as the legislation explicitly requires). But when put together, those claims amount to a frighteningly raw assertion of power: that the president can exempt specific companies from complying with legislation if he believes it interferes with his control over foreign policy. This is called the 'dispensing power.' It was an old prerogative of English kings, one in which they could simply assert that the law doesn't apply to their friends (a power not limited to foreign affairs). Dispensations were basically proactive pardons, telling someone they can feel free to ignore specific laws and never suffer any consequences. The dispensation power was so sweeping, and so anti-democratic, that it was abolished by name in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. In 1838, the US Supreme Court ruled that the president does not have dispensing power — a ruling that modern legal scholars across the political spectrum treat as obviously correct. Bondi's letters seem to directly contradict this basic principle of constitutional law. 'The effect [of the letter] is to declare an almost unbridled dispensation power when it comes to foreign relations,' says Alan Rozenshtein, a law professor at the University of Minnesota Law School who has been closely following the TikTok case. The Bondi letters have gotten virtually no attention outside of dedicated legal blogs and podcasts. And yet the implications of Trump claiming a dispensing power — the ability to issue licenses for lawlessness — are stunning. How Bondi's letters claim dispensing power The Bondi letters are very short — about six paragraphs. They do not directly assert a dispensing power, but instead confusingly mash together multiple different legal claims without spelling out how they fit together into a coherent argument. During our conversation, Rozenshtein asked to be described as 'spittle-flecked with rage' at the letters' technical legal incompetence. Inasmuch as there is a cogent argument, it appears to be something like this: The president has unilateral power under Article II of the Constitution, which defines the powers of the executive branch, to determine whether legislation would (in Bondi's words) 'interfere with the execution of the President's constitutional duties to take care of the national security and foreign affairs of the United States.' If Trump determines that legislation might 'interfere' with his conduct of foreign affairs, Bondi suggests, he can bindingly promise individual corporations or people that the administration will not take any legal action against them for violating its provisions. On its surface, this argument seems like a mashup of two relatively normal presidential prerogatives: the ability to assert that a statute contradicts presidential power and the ability to use discretion in enforcing it. But if you look more deeply, it looks less like those normal claims and a lot more like dispensation. The Supreme Court has indeed held that legislation can unconstitutionally interfere with Article II powers, the most notable recent case (2014's Zivotofsky v. Kerry) overturning a law requiring that US passports list 'Israel' as the birthplace for US citizens born in Jerusalem. However, this doesn't mean that all legislative constraints on the president's foreign policy powers are unconstitutional — far from it. And there is no credible case that the TikTok ban contravenes Article II. In fact, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the TikTok ban's constitutionality in January. Presidents are also widely understood to have discretion in how they enforce the law. There is far more lawbreaking than there are Justice Department attorneys to prosecute offenses; given scarce resources, presidents and attorneys general have to make choices about which crimes to prioritize. This discretion can give rise to tricky gray area cases. Barack Obama, for example, ordered the Justice Department to stop immigration enforcement actions against undocumented migrants brought to the US as children. There is a robust debate over whether this is a legitimate use of discretion, as the Obama administration argued, or an abuse designed to usurp Congress's lawmaking power. But the TikTok case, legal experts say, is very different. There's no issue of enforcement or limited resources; before Trump issued his exemptions, Apple and Google had already removed TikTok from their US app stores. So this isn't a decision of non-enforcement, in the sense of redirecting law enforcement resources. Rather, it was giving big tech platforms a blank check to ignore a law they had previously complied with — which is, essentially, an assertion that the president has a version of the dispensing power that English kings lost centuries ago. Just how dangerous are the letters? To understand how scary these letters are, it's worth considering an analogy: the pardon power. The pardon power is eminently, and famously, abusable. Because the president can forgive any federal crime (at least theoretically), he can dangle pardons in front of anyone he wants to break the law — promising them that he'll make sure they get away with it. But the pardon power only covers criminal offenses, not violation of the civil code. Jack Goldsmith, a leading expert on presidential power at Harvard Law School, reads Bondi's letters as claiming the power to proactively forgive civil violations. This would, in effect, allow the president to authorize whole new categories of illegal conduct, provided he can find a sufficient foreign policy-related excuse. At the moment, it does not appear that this sweeping reasoning is being employed for anything other than giving companies cover to violate the TikTok ban. But as Goldsmith notes, executive power assertions typically function like one-way ratchets: Once used successfully, presidents turn to them again in the future. 'There is an immense danger in Bondi's assertion of a dispensing power here—that it might set a precedent for assertions of the same authority in future cases in which the dispensations are far less popular and far more corrupting,' writes Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University and author of a newsletter on the Supreme Court. I have to admit, at this point, that I'd mostly been tuning out the debate over the lawfulness of the TikTok ban. It struck me as yet another in a long string of technical arguments over presidential non-enforcement, one that applied to law that it seems many in Congress regret ever passing. But after reading Bondi's letters, and studying their legal implications, I've started to see this as fundamentally different. This case isn't about TikTok, not really; it's about Trump being able to make an obviously unconstitutional power grab in secret and get away with it — as he very well may, as Rozenshtein believes the letters' claims will be hard to challenge in court due to standing issues. It's a situation that looks especially dangerous in light of his broader agenda.
The Guardian
10-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Philip Green tried to overturn my parliamentary privilege – he has so far failed, and good thing too
Knight of the Realm and business tycoon Sir Philip Green spends a lot of money on expensive lawyers. First, he took out an injunction in 2018 to block the media from mentioning him over complaints from his employees at Arcadia Group, overwhelmingly women, about bullying and abusive conduct, behaviour which he categorically denied. But that failed when I named him as the person making the injunction on 25 October 2018 in the House of Lords, under a form of legal immunity known as parliamentary privilege - whereupon his lawyers tried to get me sanctioned by the parliamentary standards commissioner. That failed too when his complaint was roundly dismissed. Green's latest action was to instruct lawyers to appeal to the European court of human rights to overturn the concept of parliamentary privilege in Britain, claiming that my comments had circumvented court orders around the injunction, violated his privacy and violated his right to fair trial. That also failed when the Strasbourg court this week sensibly ruled it was not a matter for them. (This was a chamber decision, so there are still three months during which he could ask for the case to be referred to the grand chamber of the court for a final ruling.) If he were to succeed in overriding parliamentary privilege in this case, that would be seismic for human rights and freedom of speech. It dates back at least to parliament's finest historic moment in January 1642, when King Charles I and his soldiers invaded the House of Commons to arrest five MPs for treason after their speeches criticising his rule. The Speaker courageously defied him while MPs chanted 'Privilege! Privilege!' – a cry taken up in the streets by the people of London. In 1689, the right to free speech in parliament was entrenched in the English Bill of Rights. It means that MPs or peers when speaking in parliament cannot be sued and what they say can be reported in the media without the rich or powerful being able to suppress it with legal injunctions or asset seizures. Despite outrage from the legal establishment, it was used in 1955 to name for example, the notorious spy Kim Philby. It was vindicated again in 1978 when MPs used it to expose the bogus secrecy of 'Colonel B', wrongly (as judges later found) given anonymity by a court to bolster an oppressive official secrets case against journalists. When the director of public prosecutions immediately threatened the press with prosecution, newspapers, led by the Times, defied him. That said, parliamentary privilege should be used very responsibly and sparingly. In my 34 years as a parliamentarian, I had used it just twice before naming Green. In January 2000, as a Foreign Office minister, and using British intelligence, I named traffickers selling arms for 'blood diamonds' fuelling wars in Africa. They went out of business. Their chief 'merchant of death', Putin crony Victor Bout was subsequently imprisoned. In 2017 in the Lords, I named British-based global corporations alleged to be complicit in former president Jacob Zuma's corrupt activities in South Africa. These examples are living proof of parliamentary sovereignty – irrespective of the wishes of the executive, the powerful, and the wealthy, and even rulings by the legal establishment when it prevents the publication of allegations of misconduct – as the courts did initially over the Green case. I acted for moral reasons and was not second-guessing or criticising the judiciary when I further used parliamentary privilege to name Green and share details of allegations against him in the House of Lords on 23 May 2019 - Green repeated that 'to the extent that it is suggested that I have been guilty of unlawful sexual or racist behaviour, I categorically and wholly deny these allegations'. I did this partly because Green's employees had signed non-disclosure agreements, when such NDAs are meant to ensure the sanctity of confidential commercial matters, not to hide allegations of abuse. Film tycoon Harvey Weinstein used NDAs to silence his sexual harassment victims, as did organisers of the Presidents Club dinner in London in January 2018, when 130 women were required to sign agreements in a bid to stop any details of harassment, groping and propositioning going public. Former Conservative cabinet minister Maria Miller, when chair of the women and equalities committee, said that the case had 'thrown a spotlight on the way NDAs can be used repeatedly to cover up alleged wrongdoing'. Because of Charles I's attacks, the monarch is still barred from entering the House of Commons. Parliamentary privilege is an absolute free speech right entrenched in the law, a fundamental part of Britain's constitution and a part of the rule of law itself. It should not be whittled away by allowing judges, at the behest of the powerful or wealthy, to override the sovereignty of parliament. Peter Hain was the Labour MP for Neath from 1991 to 2015 and secretary of state for Northern Ireland from 2005 to 2007
Washington Post
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Arizona lawmakers invoke special immunity for speeding tickets
PHOENIX — Soon after his black sedan was clocked speeding 18 miles an hour over the limit through a western-themed town north of here, Arizona state Sen. Mark Finchem (R) wanted to make sure he would not be treated like an ordinary person. 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?''
Yahoo
15-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Legislative immunity is a privilege in most states. A speeding ticket could change that in Arizona
PHOENIX (AP) — When a police officer gave state Sen. Mark Finchem a speeding ticket, the Arizona Republican didn't need to worry about the consequences. That's because the Arizona Constitution shields state lawmakers from any civil process and arrest for anything but treason, felony and breach of peace during legeslative sessions and the 15 days before. Legislative immunity exists in most states and allows lawmakers to brush aside lawsuits and low-level infractions like traffic tickets. Legal experts say the privilege is a form of separation of powers. It originated centuries ago in the English Bill of Rights as monarchs tried to intimidate legislators and it's been invoked over the years in a variety of situations, not always with success. See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories. By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy. In 2019, a politician in West Virginia invoked immunity after having a violent outburst. In 2022, a Wisconsin lawmaker argued he didn't have to comply with a subpoena ordering him to testify about a conversation he had with President Donald Trump about overturning the 2020 election. And last year, it shielded Kansas lawmakers who shared social media posts that falsely accused a man of being among those who opened fire at a rally celebrating the Kansas City Chiefs' Super Bowl victory. In Arizona, the perk doesn't have unanimous support in the Legislature. Republican Rep. Quang Nguyen has introduced a resolution to end immunity for traffic violations. If passed, it would become a ballot measure for voters to decide in 2026. 'The people we serve are expected to follow traffic laws, and legislators should be no different," Nguyen said in a statement. "If a lawmaker is caught speeding, running a red light, or committing any other traffic violation, they should face the same consequences as everyone else.' Nguyen represents a legislative district two hours north of Phoenix that includes the city of Prescott, the same district that Finchem represents and where he was cited on a recent Saturday by an officer who said he was driving 48 mph (77 kph) in a 30 mph (48 kph) zone. Finchem wrote to Prescott's police chief two days later, asking for the citation to 'be voided and stricken from the record.' It was dismissed Feb. 4 without prejudice, meaning it can be refiled, court records show. Finchem declined to comment through a spokesperson. Immunity generally falls into two categories, one protecting speech and debate and the other protecting lawmakers from arrest, according to the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures. In the U.S., 43 state constitutions offer protection to lawmakers for speech and debate, and about 45 provide legislative immunity from arrest related to legislative service. However, the specific provisions can vary significantly, said Mick Bullock, a spokesperson for the group. In New Mexico, for example, the constitution says lawmakers are protected from arrest when they commute to and from the Legislature. Arizona doesn't have location restrictions. Members of Congress also have legislative immunity but courts have narrowly interpreted it. Former Democratic U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey tried to claim immunity in his bribery case last year, but ended up being sentenced to 11 years in prison. In a speech Tuesday on the House floor, Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina accused her ex-fiancé of assaulting her and raping others. She argued she had immunity through the 'speech and debate' clause, providing her protection from any civil lawsuits. While it's unclear how many times legislative immunity has been invoked since it was written into the Arizona Constitution in 1912, Finchem is far from the first to claim it. In 2012, then-state Sen. Scott Bundgaard invoked it after he and his girlfriend were pulled over on a Phoenix freeway amid a violent domestic dispute. Bundgaard was allowed to go home while his girlfriend spent a night in jail. Bundgaard was later prosecuted and pleaded no-contest to a misdemeanor charge. In 2018, then-state Rep. Paul Mosely was caught on camera bragging about going as fast as 140 mph (225 kph) to a sheriff's deputy who said he pulled him over because he was speeding. Mosely later apologized. Finchem was serving in the House at the time and filed an ethics complaint, asking the committee to take whatever action it deemed necessary. Past efforts to repeal legislative immunity in Arizona have failed. Former Republican Gov. Doug Ducey supported a repeal in 2019, but it lacked traction among lawmakers. Steve Gallardo, a former state lawmaker, introduced a bill to do the same in 2012, but it met the same fate. Gallardo, a Democrat who now serves on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, said he understands the thinking behind legislative immunity during the early days of statehood. He doesn't believe it's needed today. 'Anyone who is utilizing that type of privilege is really doing a disservice to the institution, and really a big disservice to his constituency," Gallardo said. 'They're telling the greater public that they are above the law." ___ Associated Press writer Morgan Lee contributed from Santa Fe, New Mexico. Sandoval is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
The Independent
15-02-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Legislative immunity is a privilege in most states. A speeding ticket could change that in Arizona
When a police officer gave state Sen. Mark Finchem a speeding ticket, the Arizona Republican didn't need to worry about the consequences. That's because the Arizona Constitution shields state lawmakers from any civil process and arrest for anything but treason, felony and breach of peace during legeslative sessions and the 15 days before. Legislative immunity exists in most states and allows lawmakers to brush aside lawsuits and low-level infractions like traffic tickets. Legal experts say the privilege is a form of separation of powers. It originated centuries ago in the English Bill of Rights as monarchs tried to intimidate legislators and it's been invoked over the years in a variety of situations, not always with success. In 2019, a politician in West Virginia invoked immunity after having a violent outburst. In 2022, a Wisconsin lawmaker argued he didn't have to comply with a subpoena ordering him to testify about a conversation he had with President Donald Trump about overturning the 2020 election. And last year, it shielded Kansas lawmakers who shared social media posts that falsely accused a man of being among those who opened fire at a rally celebrating the Kansas City Chiefs' Super Bowl victory. In Arizona, the perk doesn't have unanimous support in the Legislature. Republican Rep. Quang Nguyen has introduced a resolution to end immunity for traffic violations. If passed, it would become a ballot measure for voters to decide in 2026. 'The people we serve are expected to follow traffic laws, and legislators should be no different," Nguyen said in a statement. "If a lawmaker is caught speeding, running a red light, or committing any other traffic violation, they should face the same consequences as everyone else.' Nguyen represents a legislative district two hours north of Phoenix that includes the city of Prescott, the same district that Finchem represents and where he was cited on a recent Saturday by an officer who said he was driving 48 mph (77 kph) in a 30 mph (48 kph) zone. Finchem wrote to Prescott's police chief two days later, asking for the citation to 'be voided and stricken from the record.' It was dismissed Feb. 4 without prejudice, meaning it can be refiled, court records show. Finchem declined to comment through a spokesperson. Immunity generally falls into two categories, one protecting speech and debate and the other protecting lawmakers from arrest, according to the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures. In the U.S., 43 state constitutions offer protection to lawmakers for speech and debate, and about 45 provide legislative immunity from arrest related to legislative service. However, the specific provisions can vary significantly, said Mick Bullock, a spokesperson for the group. In New Mexico, for example, the constitution says lawmakers are protected from arrest when they commute to and from the Legislature. Arizona doesn't have location restrictions. Members of Congress also have legislative immunity but courts have narrowly interpreted it. Former Democratic U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey tried to claim immunity in his bribery case last year, but ended up being sentenced to 11 years in prison. In a speech Tuesday on the House floor, Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina accused her ex-fiancé of assaulting her and raping others. She argued she had immunity through the 'speech and debate' clause, providing her protection from any civil lawsuits. While it's unclear how many times legislative immunity has been invoked since it was written into the Arizona Constitution in 1912, Finchem is far from the first to claim it. In 2012, then-state Sen. Scott Bundgaard invoked it after he and his girlfriend were pulled over on a Phoenix freeway amid a violent domestic dispute. Bundgaard was allowed to go home while his girlfriend spent a night in jail. Bundgaard was later prosecuted and pleaded no-contest to a misdemeanor charge. In 2018, then-state Rep. Paul Mosely was caught on camera bragging about going as fast as 140 mph (225 kph) to a sheriff's deputy who said he pulled him over because he was speeding. Mosely later apologized. Finchem was serving in the House at the time and filed an ethics complaint, asking the committee to take whatever action it deemed necessary. Past efforts to repeal legislative immunity in Arizona have failed. Former Republican Gov. Doug Ducey supported a repeal in 2019, but it lacked traction among lawmakers. Steve Gallardo, a former state lawmaker, introduced a bill to do the same in 2012, but it met the same fate. Gallardo, a Democrat who now serves on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, said he understands the thinking behind legislative immunity during the early days of statehood. He doesn't believe it's needed today. 'Anyone who is utilizing that type of privilege is really doing a disservice to the institution, and really a big disservice to his constituency," Gallardo said. 'They're telling the greater public that they are above the law." ___
