Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Justine Wadsack

Judge denies sanctions against Wadsack for dismissed civil rights lawsuit

Key Points:
  • Justine Wadsack won’t pay city’s legal fees in civil rights lawsuit
  • City of Tucson requested a $7,838 reimbursement for court preparations
  • Wadsack now works for Turning Point, a conservative student organization

Justine Wadsack is finally off the financial hook for the civil rights lawsuit she filed and then dismissed against the city of Tucson.

In an Oct. 3 order, U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps rejected a request by lawyers for the city that the former state senator from the Tucson area reimburse them for the $7,838 they spent preparing for a hearing that Wadsack did not show up to.

Zipps said courts have “inherent powers” to impose sanctions — including the legal fees of an opposing party — “to maintain order and preserve the dignity of the court.”

However, she noted that, given the broad power, judges should not exercise it without a “specific finding of bad faith.” And Zipps said that Wadsack’s actions did not rise to that level.

“While plaintiff failed to appear at the Aug. 26 hearing, she submitted a response to the court’s Order to Show Cause explaining her absence,” the judge said.

In that signed affidavit filing, Wadsack acknowledged she was aware of the hearing in federal court in Tucson. But she told Zipps she is “experiencing a family health crisis that is physically and mentally draining.”

“Consequently, I will at times lose focus and mix up specific dates and times,” Wadsack wrote. “That is what caused my failure to appear.”

In seeking legal fees, Joseph Williams, representing Tucson, accused Wadsack of “lack of candor,” saying she intentionally skipped the hearing to attend another event. Zipps, however, was not convinced that Wadsack should be punished.”

“Although defendants characterize plaintiff’s explanation as dishonest, the record does not provide support for that conclusion or evidence that plaintiff acted vexatiously, wantonly, or for an improper purpose rather than negligently,” the judge said. She said that bad faith — the standard for sanctions — “requires more than mere negligence or recklessness.”

The underlying case involves Wadsack, then still a Republican state senator, being stopped in 2024 for driving 71 miles per hour on East Speedway on a stretch marked at 35 miles per hour.

Wadsack said she had a placard on the back of her vehicle identifying her as a state legislator and stated that she should not have been stopped because the Arizona Constitution prohibits lawmakers from being cited for criminal violations while the Legislature is in session.

The officer, acknowledging that constitutional provision, did not issue a citation at the time. But she was charged with criminal speeding after the session ended.

That case was dismissed after she took a defensive driving course.

In the meantime, she had lost the GOP primary to Vince Leach. Wadsack then filed suit in federal court accusing the officer and various city officials of targeting her, violating her civil rights, at least in part because of her role in investigating the city, and “because she is a woman and her primary opponent was a man who TPD officials felt could be better controlled than plaintiff.”

Wadsack later dropped her claim, prompting Williams to request that the court order her to pay the city’s legal fees.

She moved to Gilbert after losing her 2024 reelection bid for the state Senate.

Wadsack said she has been working for Turning Point now for more than a year, the organization created by Charlie Kirk that seeks to identify and organize students “to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government.” Wadsack said his shooting death “hits extra hard.”

Tucson attorney requests compensation for time wasted in Wadsack lawsuit

Key Points:
  • Former state Sen. Justine Wadsack dropped her civil rights claim against Tucson
  • Tucson attorney Joseph Williams seeks $7,838 in legal fees for time spent in preparation
  • Wadsack failed to show up to one of her hearings

She may have dropped her civil rights claim against Tucson, but an attorney for the city is still arguing that former state Sen. Justine Wadsack shouldn’t be excused from paying her share of the costs to prepare her case — especially as she was a no-show at one of the hearings.

In new filings, Joseph Williams tells U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps that lawyers with his firm spent time and effort preparing arguments to face off against Wadsack. Williams said it took more than nine hours of legal work preparing motions before the case was tossed. With those hours in mind, he asked that the court impose financial sanctions on Wadsack.

All totaled, he said, he and his firm are entitled to $7,838.

Wadsack, when asked for comment, responded, “pound sand,” and said “aggressive hit jobs on me are inappropriate.”

Williams also told Zipps that the fact Wadsack is no longer pursuing her claim does not excuse her from having to pay the costs she forced the city to assume in defending it. And he noted that, even in moving to drop her claims that her rights were violated when she was pulled over in 2024 for speeding in Tucson, Wadsack asked that the case be dismissed “without prejudice,” leaving open the opportunity for her to refile it at some point.

“The court has the inherent power to punish those who litigate in bad faith before it by ordering the violating party or its counsel to pay the opposing party’s attorneys’ fees,” Williams said.

In this case, he said, it was more than Wadsack simply not pursuing the case after she filed it earlier this year. Williams also stated that there was her failure to appear in court for an Aug. 26 hearing which was to determine whether Dennis Wilenchik, whom she had retained as counsel, could drop her as a client — something an attorney cannot do without court permission.

“Wadsack knew the date, time, and location of the hearing and understood the court ordered her to attend,” he said.

In a signed affidavit filing explaining her absence, Wadsack acknowledged she was aware of the hearing in federal court in Tucson. But in a signed affidavit, she told the judge she is “experiencing a family health crisis that is physically and mentally draining.”

“Consequently, I will at times lose focus and mix up specific dates and times,” Wadsack wrote. “That is what caused my failure to appear.”

Williams sniffed at that explanation.

“She was not too drained or forgetful to attend a scheduled personal event, a fact she does not dispute,” he told Zipps, pointing out the fact she posted on X the afternoon of the hearing saying she was attending an event in Phoenix.

All this stems from the 2024 traffic stop during the legislative session on East Speedway where an officer said he clocked her doing double the posted limit. She responded she was trying to get home quickly because her all-electric Tesla was about to run out of battery charge.

But Wadsack also claimed she was targeted because she was a state senator. She framed it as a retaliation for her “investigating the Tucson police, (being) an outspoken critic of the Tucson city government, (being) a member of the legislature’s Freedom Caucus, and because she is a woman and her primary opponent was a man who TPD officials felt could be controlled better.”

The officer, after consulting with superiors, did not cite her at the time as the Arizona Constitution protects lawmakers from arrest while the Legislature is in session.

But that provision is not immunity. And she was given a citation after the session.

Wadsack had the traffic charge dismissed after taking a defensive driving class.

She then turned around earlier this year and accused the officer and various Tucson officials of violating her civil rights and being part of a plan designed to undermine her reelection bid. As it turned out, Wadsack did lose the 2024 GOP primary to Vince Leach, who she had defeated just two years earlier.

Justine Wadsack drops civil rights lawsuit against Tucson police

Key Points:
  • Ex-Sen. Wadsack drops civil rights claim against Tucson police
  • Wadsack cites family health crisis for dropping the lawsuit
  • Wadsack settled the initial traffic violation by completing a defensive driving course

Justine Wadsack is dropping her claim that Tucson police and others violated her civil rights with a 2024 traffic stop.

In new court filings on Sept. 9, the former state senator from Tucson told U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps that she is “experiencing a family health crisis” and that there has been a “negative impact of this lawsuit on my ability to care for my family.”

Wadsack also “sincerely” apologized for her failure to show up in court on Aug. 26 as the judge had ordered. That was for a hearing to determine whether Dennis Wilenchik should be able to withdraw as her attorney.

But in her court filing, she said there’s a reason she was a no-show in court.

“As noted in prior filings, I am experiencing a family health crisis that is physically and mentally draining,” Wadsack wrote.

“Consequently, I will at times lose focus and mix up specific dates and times,” she told the judge. “That is what caused my failure to appear.”

But during the time she was supposed to be in court, Wadsack posted on X that she was at a presentation by Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point Action. Wadsack told Capitol Media Services she is now employed by that organization.

Wadsack offered no details in her latest filing on what she called her “underlying family health crisis.” Instead, she told Zipps she would, if required, submit details confidentially to the judge “given the deeply personal nature of the issue.”

Wilenchik, in what is likely his last action on Wadsack’s behalf, told the judge that her request to dismiss the case should end the matter without the need for further court action. What it also does, he said, is preclude the court from considering a request by attorneys for Tucson that Wadsack be sanctioned both for failing to pursue the case as well as for failing to show up.

The lawsuit is an outgrowth of a traffic stop in April 2024 on East Speedway Boulevard, where the Tucson police officer said she was driving 71 miles an hour in a 35 mph zone, which is a felony.

She was not issued a ticket at the time because the Arizona Constitution exempts legislators from arrest while the Legislature is in session. And Wadsack said she had a placard attached to her rear license plate noting she was a senator.

But that constitutional provision did not preclude police from citing her after the session ended. Wadsack settled the matter by completing a defensive driving course.

That, however, was not the end of the matter.

Earlier this year, she filed suit against the police officer who pulled her over in the first place, as well as the city and various others in the Tucson Police Department, accusing them in federal court of violating her civil rights.

Wadsack said the defendants sought to cause her “embarrassment and emotional distress as well as destruction to her character and legislative position by charging her with the bogus traffic crime, and publicizing it.”

She claimed all of this was in retaliation because she was an “outspoken critic of the Tucson City government.”

Wadsack also said she was targeted as a member of the Freedom Caucus, composed of the most conservative members of the Legislature, and “because she is a woman and her primary opponent was a man who TPD officials felt could be controlled better.”

That opponent was Vince Leach, who she had defeated in the 2022 GOP primary. Leach ended up winning the primary in 2024 — after all the publicity about her citation — and now represents the legislative district that makes up much of northern and eastern Pima County and the southern part of Pinal County.

Wadsack, who has since moved to Gilbert, declined to comment beyond what is in the pleadings.

Wadsack’s lawsuit faces dismissal after court no-show and social media post

Key Points:
  • Wadsack missed her appointment to appear in court on August 26
  • Attorney asks judge to throw out Justine Wadsack’s lawsuit
  • Wadsack’s lawsuit claims a conspiracy to undermine her reelection efforts

Saying she has willfully ignored a court order to appear, an attorney for Tucson wants a federal judge to throw out Justine Wadsack’s lawsuit against the city.

He is also requesting a judge to order the former state senator to pick up the city’s costs for preparing for the hearing.

In new court filings, Joseph Williams points out that U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps had originally ordered Wadsack to be in court on Aug. 19 to deal with a bid by Dennis Wilenchik, her attorney, to withdraw from the case. This is the case in which Wadsack claims her civil rights were violated in 2024 when she was stopped and later cited for speeding in Tucson.

Wilenchik gave no reason other than to tell the judge it was “professional considerations.” Wadsack, however, told Capitol Media Services she was short of cash to pay her attorney.

But Wilenchik cannot withdraw until Zipps gives her approval — which was to be the subject of the Aug. 19 hearing.

Wadsack sought and was granted a delay, this time until Aug. 26.

But Wadsack did not show up or call the court.

What makes this particularly egregious, Williams told Zipps, is that during the time Wadsack was supposed to be in court, she posted on X that she was “fortunate enough to be sitting front & center” at a talk by Charlie Kirk of Turning Point Action.

Kirk is the founder of that group, which seeks to “elect true conservative leaders.” And Wadsack told Capitol Media Services she is now working for the organization.

“She was explicitly ordered to appear in person for the hearing on August 26,” Williams said in his legal filing asking her lawsuit against the city be tossed.

“Her subsequent tweet, posted during the hearing, confirms her conscious decision to prioritize a voluntary event in Phoenix over a mandatory court appearance in Tucson,” he said. “This was not an oversight, a misunderstanding, or a minor procedural misstep; it was a deliberate choice to disregard an explicit and unambiguous directive from the court.”

And Williams told Zipps she needs to do something strong to get Wadsack’s attention.

“Monetary sanctions, while available, may not sufficiently deter such deliberate defiance or compel plaintiff to engage meaningfully with the court’s directives,” he said.

So what’s needed, Williams said, is for Zipps to dismiss Wadsack’s lawsuit against the city because she has failed to pursue the case and comply with court orders. He also wants Wadsack to pay the legal fees and costs incurred in preparing for and attending the Aug. 26 hearing, as well as the cost of preparing this new motion for sanctions.

Wadsack, when asked for comment about the city’s request, replied, “Get a life, seriously.”

The essence of her lawsuit is that she was singled out when a Tucson police officer pulled her over on East Speedway in 2024 after he said he clocked her driving 71 mph in an area with a 35 mph limit. She denied going that fast, but said she was speeding home because the battery on her all-electric Tesla was about to run out.

Wadsack did not get a citation at that time because the Arizona Constitution protects lawmakers from arrest during the legislative session. But she did get cited after the session was over, though it was dismissed after she took a defensive driving course.

Then, in January, Wadsack filed suit in federal court claiming her rights were violated in a conspiracy by Tucson police and other officials. She said that the traffic stop was all part of a plan to undermine her reelection efforts.

Whatever the reason, Wadsack lost the Republican primary race for state senate in August 2024 to Vince Leach. Leach had been defeated by Wadsack two years earlier. Leach went on to win the general election in the predominantly Republican district that encompasses much of the north and east side of Pima County and southern Pinal County.

Zipps already has issued an order giving Wadsack through Sept. 23 “to show cause why she should not be held in contempt or sanctioned for failing to comply with the court’s order.” And Zipps rescheduled — again — the hearing on the motion by Wilenchik to withdraw as her attorney, this time to Sept. 30.

Ex-Sen. Wadsack seeks donations for lawsuit against Tucson

Key Points:
  • Wadsack claims city of Tucson violated her civil rights during traffic stop
  • She claims stop was targeted, costing her election bid
  • She seeks public donations to continue court case

Former state Sen. Justine Wadsack is seeking donations she says are necessary to keep her lawsuit against the city of Tucson alive. 

Wadsack confirmed to Capitol Media Services that she has set up a page at GiveSendGo, a web site that collects both money and prayers, in hopes of raising the $75,000 she says she needs to pay attorney Dennis Wilenchik.  

“As you may have heard, I’m taking legal action against the City of Tucson and members of its police department for violating my civil rights and corrupting the 2024 election process,’’ she wrote on the website. “The situation is not just about a traffic stop — it’s about a leftist city government weaponizing its power against political opponents and silencing those who dare to challenge its radical agenda.’’ 

Wadsack, a Republican, is suing over a 2024 traffic stop by Tucson police and eventual citation that she claims was politically motivated.

Wadsack said she has collected about $1,700 from the site, and about $6,300 from other sources. 

What makes all of this significant is that Wilenchik asked U.S. District Judge Jennifer Zipps last week for permission to withdraw from the case — and to do so without Wadsack’s consent. 

Wilenchik declined to tell the judge the reason, saying it was “professional considerations.” 

But Wadsack said that motion was based on financial considerations: She’s short of cash to pay her attorney. 

“I had to take time to move,” she said, something that cost money. 

Wadsack had represented LD 17, which consists of areas on the northern and eastern edge of Pima County and into Pinal County, but now lives in Gilbert. She said there were “personal reasons” for the move. 

“Living in the Tucson area while suing the Tucson municipality was no longer safe for my family and I,” she said.

Wadsack said there were “many death threats” and there was “tampering with my car, things like that.” 

All this is occurring against the backdrop of Wilenchik’s motion to withdraw. 

He filed suit in January on her behalf following a 2024 incident in which she was stopped by a Tucson police officer who said she was driving 71 miles per hour in a 35 mph zone on Speedway Boulevard.

She did not get a ticket at the time because of a provision in the Arizona Constitution that bars lawmakers from being arrested during the legislative session. Driving 20 miles or more over the speed limit is a criminal offense. 

But Wadsack did get a citation after the session was over. It was dismissed after she took a defensive driving course. 

That, however, was not the end. Wadsack, through Wilenchik, claimed she was the victim of a conspiracy by Tucson police and other city officials to keep her silent. And she said it was all part of a plan that resulted in her losing her 2024 reelection campaign. 

A hearing on Tucson’s bid to have the case thrown out had been set for July 30, but then came Wilenchik’s request for withdrawal, and Zipps ordered Wadsack to be in court the same day. 

On July 29, she asked for a delay, saying her daughter had been seriously injured, was in a hospital in Scottsdale and she needed to be there. Zipps granted the motion, delaying anything further — including Tucson’s motion to dismiss — until Aug. 19. 

Wadsack said that Wilenchik now “stands by the case.” 

Wilenchik would not comment. But as of July 30, he had not withdrawn his request to Zipps to allow him to drop Wasack as a client. 

As to those death threats that she said forced her to move, Wadsack did not provide any corroborating evidence, nor did she file any police reports to back up those allegations. 

But she said they are real. 

“I know a couple were by strangers at meetings,” Wadsack said. “But others were sent to my family and me.” 

And why no police reports? 

“We were very afraid to turn them into the very municipality I’m suing,” she said. “See why I left?  

Ex-Sen. Justine Wadsack loses lawyer ahead of court date

Key Points:
  • Former Sen. Justine Wadsack’s lawyer withdraws before court hearing
  • Attorney Dennis Wilenchik cites “professional considerations” for withdrawal
  • Wadsack claims city’s actions caused her to lose 2024 reelection bid

Former Sen. Justine Wadsack has lost her lawyer just a week before she’s supposed to go to court in her claim against the city of Tucson because she was stopped for speeding.

In a new legal filing, attorney Dennis Wilenchik stated that “professional considerations” require him to withdraw his representation of Wadsack in her lawsuit, which alleges that her civil rights were violated when she was stopped for speeding and later issued a citation.

Wilenchik did not disclose the reason to U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps, and he told the judge that she should accept his statement that he needed to withdraw as legally sufficient.

And Wilenchik said that even if Zipps requested an explanation, he said there is legal precedent saying that judges should not require attorneys “to disclose confidential information when counsel avows that counsel has an ethical conflict requiring withdrawal.”

Wilenchik, who said he was withdrawing from the case without Wadsack’s consent, declined to comment. Wadsack did not return multiple messages.

But Wadsack still will be in court Tuesday, the day that had originally been set to hear arguments. Zipps clearly wants some more information about this last-minute development. So she ordered Wadsack to be personally present and directed Wilenchik to serve her a copy of the order.

If Wilenchik is allowed to withdraw, that will leave Wadsack to have to find an attorney who is willing to pursue her the claim that Wilenchik filed on her behalf earlier this year: that the traffic stop was designed to “target her for prosecution on trumped up and phony charges, chill Ms. Wadsack’s political free speech, and knowingly and wrongfully interfere with her right to hold public office and pursue her chosen
occupations.”

And Wadsack is claiming she can show more than $8 million in damages directly caused by the city and its officers, “not inclusive of emotional distress, psychic trauma and other general damages incurred.”

The Tucson Republican, then a state senator, was pulled over in March 2024 on East Speedway in Tucson after a police officer said he had caught her on radar going 71 miles an hour in a 35 mph zone.

Wadsack told the officer she was “racing to get home” because the battery in her all electric Tesla was about to run out of charge. But she denied going that fast.

After identifying herself as a state lawmaker, the officer chose not to cite her based on a constitutional provision saying that legislators “shall be privileged from arrests in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace” starting from 15 days ahead of the legislative session and running until lawmakers adjourn for the year.” And driving at more than 20 miles over the speed limit is a criminal offense.

But Wadsack was cited after the session ended. Her case was dismissed in January after she completed a defensive driving course and proved she had the legally required coverage.

It was then that she filed the lawsuit against the city, the officer and various superiors, claiming the traffic stop and the decision to cite her were all part of a conspiracy to silence her politically. That’s the case that was scheduled to be argued. 

Attorneys for the city, in their own legal filing, referred to her claim as a “political charade.” They stated that this was a “routine traffic procedure, the consequences of which most people would accept.”

Wadsack lost her 2024 reelection bid when fellow Republican Vince Leach defeated her in the primary, blaming that loss on the city’s action. She has since moved to Gilbert.

Tucson asks federal judge to toss ex-Sen. Wadsack’s lawsuit

Key Points:
  • Wadsack claims traffic stop was political retaliation for bills
  • She believes media leaks of the encounter hurt her reelection campaign
  • She filed a lawsuit seeking $8 million over alleged civil rights violations

Calling her claim a “political charade,” an attorney for Tucson is asking a federal judge to dismiss allegations by former Sen. Justine Wadsack that her civil rights were violated when she was stopped for speeding and later issued a citation.

In a new court filing on June 3, Joseph Williams confirmed that Ryder Schrage, a Tucson police officer, pulled over the Tucson Republican on East Speedway on March 15, 2024. The officer said he had followed her and clocked her on his radar going 71 miles an hour in a 35 mph zone.

But Williams told U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps there was nothing unusual about the stop.

“This instance was a routine traffic procedure, the consequences of which most people would accept,” he said.

Williams said the officer’s personal observation provided sufficient probable cause for the stop. And that was only cemented after Wadsack told Schrage she was a legislator and was “racing to get home” because the battery in her all-electric Tesla was about to die.

If anything, Williams said, Wadsack did get special treatment. Because she was a legislator, the officer waited until after the end of the session to issue a citation for both criminal speeding — the legal classification for driving more than 20 miles over the posted speed limit — and failure to provide proof of car insurance.

That is because the Arizona Constitution states that legislators “shall be privileged from arrests in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace,” starting 15 days before the legislative session and running until lawmakers adjourn for the year.

Her case was dismissed in January after she completed a defensive driving course and proved she had the legally required coverage. Then she filed an $8 million suit against the officer and various superiors, claiming the traffic stop and the decision to cite her all was part of a conspiracy to silence her politically.

That conspiracy, according to Dennis Wilenchik, her attorney, also included police leaking information about the citation to the media. And that, he said, resulted in her losing her 2024 reelection bid in the GOP primary to Vince Leach in LD 17 which covers portions of eastern and northern Pima County into Pinal County. Leach then went on to win the general election.

Williams, in his filings in federal court, said there are a whole series of flaws in what Wadsack is claiming. And it starts, he said, with Schrage having the legally required probable cause to stop her in the first place.

He cited the officer’s body camera footage, where Wadsack admitted to being “in a hurry.”

When Wadsack denied going 70, the officer responded, “Yes, you were. I was behind you. I had my radar on.”

“Wadsack does not allege that officer Schrage was not behind her,” Williams said. And even if the radar reading was inaccurate, as Wadsack claimed, Williams said that is irrelevant.

“Probable cause rests on Schrage’s personal observation of her excessive speed from behind her,” he said. “The radar merely quantified the magnitude of her illegal speed.”

Anyway, Williams said, even Wadsack does not challenge that she did not provide proof of legally required insurance when stopped.

Then there’s Wadsack’s claim that police officers were conspiring against her.

Wilenchik said it was “all part of a plan of members of the Tucson Police Department to act in concert with not yet known city officials to ruin plaintiff’s good reputation because she was introducing legislation these members of TPD felt were adverse to their interests.”

All that, he said, was because she was investigating Tucson police, was an “outspoken critic” of city government, was a member of the conservative Freedom Caucus, and “because she is a woman and her primary opponent was a man who TPD officials felt could be better controlled than plaintiff.”

One problem with all of that, Williams said, is that Wadsack’s alleged investigation of the department occurred four months after she was stopped and “right before” the citation was finally issued.

“Since the alleged investigation occurred after officer Schrage’s traffic stop, it could not have been the basis for retaliation or falsifying probable cause for the speeding ticket,” Williams said.

And he sniffed at her contention that Wadsack was denied equal protection as a woman or as a legislator.

“Wadsack provides no evidence that plausibly connects any of the defendants’ actions to Wadsack’s sex,” Williams said. Nor, he said, has she shown that others — males or non-legislators — were treated any differently by Tucson police.

Then there’s Wadsack’s claim about police providing information to the media. And all that coverage, Wadsack said, ended up losing her votes in the GOP primary.

The only problem with that, Williams said, is that anything done by the media — or the voters — was not done under “color of state law” which would make them liable for their acts.

Beyond that, he said the police had no involvement in the Republican primary.

“They did nothing to prohibit Wadsack from being on the ballot or running for election,” Williams said.

“TPD’s alleged action of ‘leaking’ information to the press did not cause Wadsack to lose the Republican primary,” he said. “Wadsack does not allege that TPD had control over what the press chose to write or publish.”

And the reaction of voters to all this, Williams said, was “outside the control of TPD.”

Williams also had a response to Wadsack’s claim that she was stopped because she was engaging in constitutionally protected activity: her decision to push two bills she said the city did not like.

One would have scrapped voting centers — where anyone can cast a ballot — and instead returned to when people could vote only at their local precincts. The other sought a constitutional amendment to eliminate the ability of cities like Tucson to have home rule through their own charters.

Neither measure was approved.

Williams said that’s all irrelevant. He said courts have ruled that the constitutionally protected First Amendment right of free speech — grounds for a civil rights claim — does not extend to governmental actions like promoting legislation.

No date has been set for Zipps to consider whether to let the case go to trial.

Panel backs proposal to strip some immunity from lawmakers

Gov. Katie Hobbs says Sen. Jake Hoffman was not entitled to legislative immunity to avoid being cited last month for driving 24 miles an hour over the speed limit.

Ditto, she said, of any other lawmaker stopped in the past or in the future by state troopers for going that fast.

The governor on Wednesday cited a 2018 executive order signed by Doug Ducey, her predecessor, which remains in effect.

That order directs the Department of Public Safety to consider criminal speeding to be a “breach of the peace.” That offense is defined as driving more than 20 mph over the speed limit.

What makes that significant is that the constitutional provision that exempts lawmakers from arrest before and during each legislative session has three exceptions: treason, felony and breach of the peace.

Ducey’s order, issued in the wake of a lawmaker being stopped, but not ticketed because he claimed constitutional privilege, for driving 97 miles an hour in a 55 mph zone, applies only to police employed by the state. That includes both DPS and sworn officers of the Department of Transportation.

“It is clear in some recent cases that the peace has been breached, and we have a responsibility to enforce the law in these cases,” Ducey wrote.

Hobbs told Capitol Media Services that order remains in effect.

“I think that Arizonans have a right to expect that their elected leaders are going to obey the laws,” she said.

The governor acknowledged that nothing in the 2018 order mandates that officers issue a citation, which is a form of an arrest, in every circumstance. The governor said she agrees with that.

“I’m not going to tell officers stopping folks on the highway how to do their job,” she said. “And I know that there’s a certain amount of discretion that’s used, regardless of who’s involved.”

Nor would she say that the officer who pulled over Hoffman, a Queen Creek Republican, at 11:30 a.m. driving away from the Capitol on U.S. 60 at 89 miles an hour in his Tesla Cybertruck did anything improper in deciding to give Hoffman only a warning.

But Hobbs also said that immunity for traffic citations makes no sense. And she is backing a proposal to ask voters to amend the constitutional protection to strip lawmakers of the ability to avoid citations for any traffic violations at all, not just those issued by DPS but by any law enforcement agency.

“I think our lawmakers, people that are elected to pass laws, should be held to (at) a minimum the same standards as everyone else, if not a higher standard,” she said.

A proposal to do exactly that cleared its first hurdle Wednesday as was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on 6-3 margin.

The proposal from Rep. Quang Nguyen, R-Prescott Valley, was introduced after state Sen. Mark Finchem, a Republican who represents the same district as Nguyen, sought to have a ticket he was issued last month dismissed under the current constitutional provision. Finchem wrote to Prescott痴 police chief after being ticketed for going 49 mph in a 30 mph zone asking for the ticket to be rescinded – and it was.

But it’s not just about Finchem.

Three days before Finchem was cited, Hoffman got out of a speeding ticket after a state trooper recognized him and decided not to issue a citation because he was a lawmaker. The Department of Public Safety said he was clocked traveling at 89 mph in a 65 mph zone on U.S. 60 in Mesa on Jan. 22.

And last year, then Sen. Justine Wadsack, a Tucson Republican, got Tucson police to not give her a citation after she was driving 71 in a 35 mph zone. But her relief was temporary as she was cited after the legislative session ended.

On Wednesday, both Republicans and Democrats on the committee that Ngyuen chairs backed his proposal and said there’s no justification for lawmakers to get blanket immunity from arrest, which includes traffic citations, just because of the office they hold.

Rep. Alma Hernandez, D-Tucson, admitted that she’s been stopped for speeding while traveling to and from the Capitol during her seven years in office but said she’s never tried to get out of a ticket by telling the officer she was a state lawmaker.

“Because, quite frankly, that does not matter, and I don’t think they need to know who you are when you get pulled over,” Hernandez said while voting to refer the question to voters.

“If you are breaking the law, you get a ticket. Pay your darn ticket. It’s that simple.” she said. “You don’t need to make it seem as if you’re someone special or more important than everybody else.”

And Rep. Selina Bliss, R-Prescott, said she wished the measure could be enacted just by the Legislature and not have to wait until the next general election for voters to approve the constitutional change. If the full House and the Senate approve the measure, it will appear on the 2026 general election ballot.

“My only regret is that you can’t put an emergency clause on this,” Bliss said. “It can’t happen fast enough. So I realize it’s going to go to the voters (and) they’ll have the final say.”

Three Republicans voted against the measure, with Rep. Alexander Kolodin of Scottsdale arguing that the executive branch now, mainly controlled by Democrats, could use the change to harass lawmakers they don’t like.

“The 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 doesn’t care for,” Kolodin said. “This is a time to be strengthening legislative immunity so that we can act independently and in defense of our constituents and their values without fear of what the executive branch might do or how they might try to interfere with our discharge of those duties for those reasons”

Kolodin did not clarify or cite examples.

But there have been GOP claims of executive overreach after Hoffman and 17 others, all Republicans, were indicted last year by Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat. All were charged with conspiracy and fraud in connection with their decision to sign and submit documents to Congress in 2020 certifying that Donald Trump had won the popular vote in Arizona even though he had lost to Joe Biden.

Both Reps. David Marshall, R-Snowflake, and Khyl Powell, R-Gilbert, also voted against the measure.

Both acknowledged that giving lawmakers a free pass from traffic tickets made them queasy.

“If you’re speeding, you get caught, as Representative Hernandez says, pay your ticket,” Marshall said. “Shut your mouth, pay your ticket and move on.”

But Marshall noted that, even with the constitutional restrictions police remain able to issue a ticket after the legislative session ends. And he said the provision “also protects us from lawfare.”

Nguyen said he wasn’t sponsoring the measure to specifically go after any one lawmaker. 

“This is about bringing back the integrity to the House of Representatives,” he said. “Every time we have a situation when someone is falsely or whatever it is, claiming immunity, … we don’t need the negative attention be driven to the institution that I love so much.”

And he pushed back at people who argued that the provision was in the state’s original 1912 constitution as a way to ensure legislators were not delayed as they traveled to the Capitol to vote on proposed laws.

“So there are a lot of questions about people saying, well, historically, you know, you put a fence up for a reason. Why take the fence down?” Ngyuen said. “The way I look at it is the dinosaurs are extinct so it’s time to take the fence down.”

Hoffman pointed out, and the DPS does not dispute, that he never actually told the DPS officer he was entitled to legislative immunity to avoid getting a ticket.

“The trooper recognized and verified that Mr. Hoffman is an Arizona state senator and currently in legislative session,” according to the DPS statement. And it said that the officer did not issue a citation “in accordance with the Arizona Constitution, Article 4, Part 2, Section 6,” the section granting lawmakers privilege from arrest while the Legislature is in session and 15 days ahead of that.

Strictly speaking, that does not immunize lawmakers. They still can be cited after the session is over.

That’s what happened in Tucson with Wadsack. Her speeding ticket was dismissed after she attended traffic school.

And Prescott police say they have not yet decided whether to issue a citation to Finchem after the end of the session.

That, however, won’t happen with Hoffman. A DPS spokesman said the decision was made not to pursue the matter after the session.

 

 

Wadsack criticizes police, loses their union endorsement

The Arizona Fraternal Order of Police rescinded its endorsement of Sen. Justine Wadsack, R-Tucson, who is in a tightly contested July 30 primary, after she criticized Tucson police for citing...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Gov. Hobbs signs bills regulating ‘deep fakes’

Gov. Katie Hobbs signed four bills and vetoed one on Wednesday, including two bills related to “deep fake” images and videos. One bill signed by Hobbs was introduced by Sen....

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

2 lawmakers intervene in discipline of senator’s husband

Public records obtained by the Arizona Capitol Times revealed that two state senators intervened in a business license complaint case in 2023 for the husband of one of the senators....

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.