A powerful Arizona legislator is working on a proposal to end a “get-out-of-jail-free card” for his colleagues.
Late last week, State Representative Quang Nguyen announced that he had introduced HCR 2053, which “would amend the Arizona Constitution to eliminate legislative immunity for Arizona lawmakers for all traffic violations.”
House Judiciary Chairman @QuangNguyenAZ Introduces Resolution to End Legislative Immunity for Traffic Violations
“The people we serve are expected to follow traffic laws, and legislators should be no different. We are lawmakers, not lawbreakers.”
In a statement that accompanied the release, Nguyen said, “Elected officials should not have special privileges that allow them to break the law without accountability. The people we serve are expected to follow traffic laws, and legislators should be no different. 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.”
Representative Nguyen added, “No one should be above the rules of the road. Lawmakers should follow the same laws they create and enforce. We are lawmakers, not lawbreakers.”
According to the press release from Nguyen’s office, “Under current law, Article IV, Part 2, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution grants legislators immunity from arrest in all cases except treason, felony, and breaches of the peace while the Legislature is in session.”
If passed by the Arizona House and Senate, HCR 2053 would go directly to the November 2026 General Election ballot to be considered by the state’s voters, bypassing Governor Katie Hobbs. If a majority of voters were to give approval to this resolution, the Arizona Constitution would be amended to ensure that all state legislators were not able to avail themselves of this exemption.
The Vice Mayor for the City of Surprise, Jack Hastings, gave this proposal a hearty endorsement, writing, “Thank you Quang Nguyen! Nothing is more petty than an elected official using their office to try to get out of a speeding ticket.”
Thank you @QuangNguyenAZ! Nothing is more petty than an elected official using their office to try to get out of a speeding ticket. https://t.co/o65vIBQ4gd
Things are just not going well for the leftwing activist groups, billionaire-funded NGOs and trial lawyer firms who have recruited a growing number of state and local government entities to sue U.S. oil and gas companies involving specious claims for damages caused by climate change. In recent months, the lawfare campaign, coordinated mainly from the offices of one San Francisco-based firm, has suffered a series of adverse judicial decisions in what appears to be a rising consensus in the nation’s courts.
Just two weeks after suffering a major setback in a decision involving Anne Arundel County, Maryland, the pushers and funders of this lawfare campaign were tossed out in a case targeting ExxonMobil, Chevron and additional defendants in New Jersey. There, Superior Court Judge Douglas H. Hurd dismissed the Garden State’s lawsuit with prejudice based on the same federal primacy arguments which prevailed in recent decisions in New York City and Baltimore, as well as in the Anne Arundel case.
In seeking damages, New Jersey adopted similar tactics adopted in the other cases that make up this lawfare campaign, claiming they’ve been harmed by “climate change” impacts allegedly caused by the emissions by oil companies, but attempting to couch the damages as violations of state laws unrelated to air pollution. But Hurd was having none of it.
“Despite the artful pleading by the Plaintiffs in this case,” the judge says in his decision, “this court finds that Plaintiffs’ complaint, even under the most indulgent reading, is entirely about addressing the injuries of global climate change and seeking damages for such alleged injuries.”
The problem for the states, cities and counties who have signed up for this lawfare campaign in the hopes of grabbing some big bucks from Big Oil is that their arguments inevitably amount to a local effort to de facto regulate air quality, an area of regulation in which the federal government has always asserted its primacy. There’s a very good reason for this: If every city, county and state in America were allowed to regulate air quality, the economy would soon grind to a halt as it becomes impossible to do business in this country.
Like the judges in the other cases decided thus far, Hurd conceded to that reality in dismissing the New Jersey case, saying, “As Defendants state in their moving brief, ‘the federal system does not permit a State to apply its laws to claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by interstate or worldwide emissions,’” adding, “In conclusion, only federal law can govern Plaintiffs’ interstate and international emissions claims because ‘the basic scheme of the Constitution so demands.’”
The decision in the New Jersey case no doubt comes as a real disappointment for the billionaire-funded foundations and NGOs who spent years pushing for the state attorney general’s office to bring a case. In 2023, Energy Policy Advocates obtained emails detailing tactics employed by the Rockefeller-funded Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) to convince various cities and counties in the state to sign onto the lawfare campaign.
Those emails revealed close coordination between CCI and New Jersey officials, even to the extent of CCI funding an “Accountability University” to educate lawfare participants about the best tactics and talking points to deploy in their big money grab efforts.
CCI even offered to “ghost write” opinion pieces for public officials and “serve as an extra set of hands,” adding, “…there are absolutely no legal obligations. Since we are a 501 c3, there is no pledge or legal sign on’ required. Rather, we view ourselves as an extra set of hands to help public officials…”
So, what’s the point of all this, you might ask? Well, the point is that when you see one of these lawsuits brought by a city, county or state government, just know that none of this is happening organically. Also know that this big money grab costs these companies millions to defend themselves, and we all end up paying for it at the gas pump and in our home utility bills. Maybe it’s time we all demand these billionaires and trial lawyers find more productive ways to spend their time and money.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Attorney General Kris Mayes joined a secret compact with 21 other attorneys general to resist President Donald Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship.
The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project obtained the secretive agreement, dated a little over a week after Trump won reelection.
🚨SECRET BLUE STATE RESISTANCE AGREEMENT OBTAINED – BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP🚨
We have obtained a secret agreement between 22 blue states, DC, and San Francisco, signed beginning on November 8, 2024. This agreement, just 3 days after President Trump's landslide election win,… pic.twitter.com/7AsqgCjlcX
Per the agreement, the 22 attorneys general agreed to engage in collaborative legal and communicative efforts to resist Trump’s immigration enforcement initiatives, including those deemed confidential and/or privileged.
Per the agreement, all shared information would be used for the development of processes such as pre-suit investigations, litigation strategies, complaints, dispositive motions, merits briefs, and amicus briefs. The agreement prohibited third parties from accessing any of this shared information. The agreement extended its definition of shared information to include all documents, materials, information, and communications exchanged between the attorneys generals’ offices prior to the agreement.
The agreement did allow for public records access to the shared information, but required the attorneys general to give five days’ notice, minimum, to the other attorneys general about the request before it was due.
“The Parties have agreed that they have a common interest in developing potential litigation to challenge executive action related to ending or curtailing birthright citizenship,” stated the agreement.
The other attorneys general to enter the secretive agreement oversaw California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, as well as Washington, D.C.
The city and county of San Francisco, California also joined the agreement last month.
Trump issued an executive order ending birthright citizenship during his first day in office. The order extends to children born of illegal immigrant parents in the U.S. It prohibits the federal government from issuing or accepting citizenship documents from persons born under those circumstances after its effective date, which is scheduled to take place later this month.
“[T]he Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’” read the order.
The order flies in the face of longstanding court precedent on the matter.
That precedent led three federal judges in separate cases to block Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. The first two occurred in Washington and Maryland, with the third occurring on Monday in New Hampshire.
Mayes joined Arizona to the case blocked in the Washington district court earlier this month. Based on the timeline of the secretive agreement and the filing of their lawsuit, it appears the case emerged directly from that agreement.
“The court’s decision to block this illegal executive order nationwide protects the basic right to birthright citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment,” said Mayes. “I will keep fighting to protect the Constitutional rights of all Arizonans from the Trump administration’s illegal actions.”
Several of those states signed onto the secretive agreement — Washington, Oregon, and Illinois — were partnered on the lawsuit with Mayes.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
A Republican lawmaker is demanding answers of Arizona’s Democrat Chief Executive over a looming financial crisis of a vital program for parents and children.
On Wednesday, State Representative David Livingston sent a letter to Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, “renewing his warning over the imminent insolvency of the state’s Developmental Disabilities (DDD) program, calling out [the governor’s] administration for its fiscal mismanagement and lack of legislative consultation.”
In a statement that accompanied the press release sharing the contents of the letter, Livingston, the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said, “This administration has made major financial commitments without consulting the Legislature, and now families are staring down the consequences of an unsustainable program. Governor Hobbs must explain why her agencies are making decisions without oversight and what her plan if this program collapses.”
Livingston added, “Under Governor Hobbs’ watch, the cost of this program has exploded from $750 million to $1.5 billion. The Legislature was blindsided by these numbers, and we need immediate answers on how the administration plans to rein in spending before Arizona families are left with nothing.”
The longtime Arizona legislator wrote in his letter, “As I continue to untangle the executive budget proposal, I am most disturbed to learn that decisions made by your departments have threatened the operations of the State’s Developmental Disabilities program. The House Appropriation Committee was briefed last week, less than two weeks after your original budget proposal, that DDD’s supplemental needs have increased from $109 million just to keep the program from ceasing operations in April. This is alarming to both the Legislature and families using this program.”
Representative Livingston noted that his committee “was briefed that cost overruns are for three primary reasons: growth in eligibility, increased rates, and the continuation of the COVID-era Parents as Paid Caregivers Program.” He highlighted that “AHCCCS not only made these decisions without consultation of the Legislature, but without consultation of DDD, the manager of the program.”
The questions Representative Livingston asked of the Governor’s Office are as follows:
“Will your office choose the same posture this year and what is your plan when the DDD program must discontinue operations in the Spring?” (referring to the lateness of budget negotiations between the Governor and legislative Republicans)
“Can you explain why AHCCCS makes decisions without input?”
“I need to know as soon as possible what AHCCCS and DDD plan to do to control the spiraling costs in these programs.”
“What oversight and controls can be implemented to relieve the pressure on these employees and ensure uniform implementation?” (referring to reports of pressure by parents on Service Coordinators to increase hours, affecting the spending within the program)
This financial crisis over DDD adds to a rocky start of the 57th Regular Session between Arizona Republican legislators and Governor Hobbs in the third year of a divided state government.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizona legislative Republicans continue to prioritize the state’s wildfire mitigation efforts in anticipation of another active season this summer.
Earlier this week, the Arizona Senate Republican Caucus issued a press release to update on two wildfire mitigation-related bills that had passed out of committees in the chamber.
One of those bills was SB 1297, which “directs $6.5 million to the Department of Administration for local fire departments to implement a Fire Incident management System, provid[ing] funding to equip fire engines with state-of-the-art communications systems that will improve coordination between local fire departments, emergency responders, and state authorities.” The proposal, which was sponsored by Senator Kevin Payne, passed the National Resources, Energy & Water Committee, with an overwhelmingly bipartisan 7-1 vote (one Democrat voting in opposition – Senator Sundareshan).
The other piece of legislation was SB 1285, which “appropriates $12.5 million to the Department of Forestry and Fire Management [to be] awarded as grants to fire districts for the purchase of tactical water tenders, as well as type 3 and type 6 fire engines for wildfire response.” This bill, which was sponsored by Senator David Gowan, was approved by the Appropriations Committee with a 9-0 result (with one member not voting – Senator Epstein).
In a statement, Senator Gowan said, “With the ongoing development of lands adjacent to natural forested and desert areas, the wildfire threat is front and center for Arizona communities. I am committed to providing our first responders with the resources they need to save lives and property from wildfire tragedy.”
Senator Payne added, “While California’s government prioritized progressive political agendas like DEI over the resources needed to fight wildfires efficiently, Arizona Senate Republicans remain focused on what truly matters – protecting our communities and preparing for the annual fire season. We will continue to invest in the tools and technology necessary to ensure our firefighters have what they need so that what happened in California never happens here at home.”
Fire Chief Jake Rhoades, the President of the Arizona Fire Chiefs Association, also weighed in on the efforts to pass these bills, writing, “Ensuring firefighters are properly trained and equipped to respond to wildfire emergencies is a top priority for fire districts across the state. The passage of SB 1285 and SB 1297 would significantly assist our efforts, by equipping our personnel with essential firefighting apparatus needed to complete the mission.”
The bills from Senate Republicans to help combat another dangerous fire season in Arizona come at the same time House Republicans are also attempting to pass similar proposals in their chamber. In a press release issued earlier this week, State Representative Lupe Diaz highlighted that Governor Katie Hobbs’ proposed budget “offers zero funding for hazardous vegetation removal or forest thinning despite recognizing that wildland fire costs have been ‘much higher in recent years’ due to neglected forest maintenance.” Hobbs did not mention plans to address wildfire mitigation efforts in her State of the State address to the Arizona Legislature at the beginning of the 57th Regular Session last month, which stood out due to the very recent example with the destructive Los Angeles fires.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
