Prescott-area representative Republican Quang Nguyen wants to amend the state constitution — to keep his fellow lawmakers from getting out of traffic tickets.
Right now, state lawmakers are immune from civil traffic violations while the legislature is in session. His bill would do away with that. Though only for things like speeding tickets. Lawmakers would still be exempt from arrest except for, “treason, felony and breach of the peace.” If he can get his fellow lawmakers to sign on, it would go to voters next year.
The move comes as lawmakers keep making headlines for playing that legislative immunity card. From former Sen. Justine Wadsack, to Sen. Jake Hoffman, who was going 89 miles per hour in a 65 zone. The trooper recognized him as a lawmaker and didn’t give him a ticket. And, Nguyen’s own seatmate, Rep. Mark Finchem, invoked his legislative immunity last month to get out of a traffic ticket after he was clocked going 48 miles per hour in a 30 zone.
The law has been around since our state’s founding in 1912, when there were concerns that corrupt cops might pull a legislator over to prevent them from voting at the Capitol. But Nguyen joined The Show to discuss how he says that’s not an issue today.
Full conversation
QUANG NGUYEN: You know, we keep hearing about legislative immunity being misused, and so I sort of got to a point where I'm a little bit, a little bit frustrated with the black eyes given to the institution that I love so much, which is the House of Representatives and the Legislature. It's such an honor to be down here representing constituents from all around the states and we just need to pay a little bit more attention to who we are as representatives and not misuse immunity just because we have it. And that's my main motivation.
LAUREN GILGER: And it's interesting, can you talk a little bit about some of the history of this immunity and why this is included? It's kind of from a long time ago when it was sort of the Wild West out here, right?
NGUYEN: Yeah, correct, correct. And this is my fifth year, and personally I've never been pulled over because of a vote. I don't know any of the other legislators within the legislature being pulled over for a vote or preventing a vote from happening. Then you can go back to 20 years, 30 years, and 40 years and I haven't been able to find anything and maybe somebody, somebody else could help me out.
But I think it's time for us to go away with it because it's only drawing negative attention to the institution. And so I think if we were to go away with the immunity, then you and I wouldn't have this conversation at all, would we?
GILGER: And you think it's giving you a black eye basically. Lawmakers in general, the institution as a whole.
NGUYEN: I think so, you know, every single time an event happens and somebody pulled the immunity issue, then you have a large population, for example, I won't talk about people outside of my district, but people inside my district are saying, why is this person deserving immunity, and when I, you know, have the same traffic ticket. I have no say. I have to go to court, I have to pay for it.
And I think if we are as lawmakers. And we are not lawbreakers. We should live under the same rules and law that we are creating every single day down here for the general population, and I think it's a lot of it is about fairness. Lauren, I just wanna make sure you understand that I'm not going after any particular legislator at all. I want to do is bring integrity back to the institution, that's all.
GILGER: Right OK, so let me ask you about the reception. This proposal has gotten from your colleagues though. I mean, it's tough to ask lawmakers to give up a privilege that they've enjoyed for some time. You drive a lot to get to the Capitol too. I mean, like, what have folks had to say about this at the Capitol there?
NGUYEN: Well, there are a lot of people were, you know, some, some legislators started to push back a little bit. And I understand it it's an immunity and, and people actually said, you know, don't remove the fence if you don't understand why the fence was put up in the first place and, and my comment back to that is, you know, hey, listen, dinosaurs extinct, we can actually take the fence down because they're not here to go after us anymore.
I'm, I'm doing 93 miles each way every single day. That’s 180 miles. And so what does that mean for me? I'm actually moving immunity from me who is doing, you know, the most driving on the freeway and have more opportunities to be pulled over than anybody else.
GILGER: So your bill would only add traffic violations to the very short list of exceptions to this immunity clause, right?
NGUYEN: That's it. You, you said it right. It only adds to traffic violations. We still can't be arrested, except for, you know, felony or treason. And it's all listed in Section 6. It's not removing the immunity altogether. And in fact, in 2019, Governor Ducey asked legislators to remove the immunity clause altogether. I'm not doing that. I'm just adding the silly traffic violations and it'll just stop the conversation.
GILGER: So what immunity do you think is appropriate? I mean, none of this applies to criminal cases, but within the civil realm.
NGUYEN: You know, hey, listen, I would live without it, so let me just put it that way. I can live every day without the immunity clause all removed together. We are lawmakers for crying out loud. Why do we protect ourselves from breaking certain laws? I mean, it just makes no sense to me. This is 2025. This is not 1912 anymore or 1917 when people were driving the Model A and being pulled over. Not that it makes no sense.
Lauren, I want to bring up this point too. If I were to be pulled over by a law enforcement officer, I would just pull out my cell phone and say, Mr. Speaker, House of Representatives, I'm gonna be a couple of hours late. So if there's an important, important, super important bill, could you please hold it for a couple of hours until I make it? I mean, it's that simple. It's not a big deal. It just gives the optics of we are about the law, and I, I just don't like that.
GILGER: So this would go to voters if it passes through the Legislature. Do you think it would have popular support?
NGUYEN: Absolutely. If I were a betting person, which I'm not, I would say probably 90% plus would vote to approve this HCR.
GILGER: Do you think it'll get that far and through the Legislature to the voters?
NGUYEN: I, you know, I have no idea what people wake up and think about, you know, things in the morning, but I wake up, the first thing I think about is I'm on the right side of the grass. God loves me, and now let's go down there and do something to make Yavapai County and LD1 a much better place to live. And this immunity thing doesn't make us look good.
