September 03, 2024 02:42 PM UTC

Can We Please Not Play Stupid Games With Legislative Privilege?

• 5 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

9NEWS’ Marshall Zelinger reported on Friday evening on an unusual and potentially troubling resolution to a photo radar ticket issued against a sitting state legislator, Democratic Rep. Steven Woodrow, who appears to have beaten his ticket by asserting a state constitutional immunity privilege meant to protect state lawmakers from being detained by corrupt cops on their way to vote at the Capitol:

A Colorado state lawmaker caught by photo radar going 18 mph over the speed limit avoided paying the $40 fine because of legislative privilege…

“I believe that we might have legislative privilege. That’s why I pleaded not guilty to this. I wanted to see what the actual net result would be if someone actually ever asserted this,” Woodrow said to a Denver County magistrate, according to a court transcript obtained by 9NEWS Investigates.

Article V, Section 16 of the Colorado Constitution is titled, “Privileges of Members” for the legislative branch.

“The members of the general assembly shall, in all cases except treason or felony, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of their respective houses, or any committees thereof, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either house or any committees thereof, they shall not be questioned in any other place,” the constitution states.

We’ll start by saying that this particular case is about as small a legal matter as can be adjudicated, and there’s no question Rep. Woodrow had the $40 to pay this photo radar ticket if he had wanted to. Rep. Woodrow, who reportedly brought a “high school AP government student” to court to observe the proceedings, claims to have been strictly testing the limits of the immunity provision to see how the matter would play out.

Unfortunately, the judge’s ruling appears to fundamentally misunderstand the legislative privilege provision in Colorado’s constitution, meaning the “precedent” Woodrow wanted to establish could be a significant problem in future such cases. The purpose of legislative privilege is not to grant blanket protection for lawmakers from prosecution for any kind of misdeed short of treason or a felony, it is to prevent bad actors from detaining lawmakers on their way to vote during the legislative session. Obviously, there’s nothing about a photo radar ticket that impedes a lawmaker from carrying out their duties in any way.

Where Woodrow’s academic exercise could become a legitimate issue is if it motivates Republican lawmakers to challenge the state capitol’s recently-enacted ban on lawmakers carrying concealed handguns invoking the same legislative immunity provision of the state constitution. During the debate this session over the bill fully banning firearms inside the Capitol, Republicans speculated wildly about the immunity provision, essentially arguing that yes, they can commit whatever crimes they want short of treason or a felony with impunity.

What’s needed and this regrettable exercise did not provide is a court ruling that makes this obvious point in writing: legislative immunity was never intended to allow lawmakers to become lawbreakers with the freedom to commit minor crimes at will. The implications of this ruling create the possibility of, to put it mildly, absurd future outcomes.

The damage–or at least confusion–this ruling could cause on much less trivial matters has a value exceeding $40.