Most Americans who see flashing lights in their rearview mirror pull over, take the ticket, and get on with their day. Nobody enjoys it. But nobody pulls out a pocket Constitution and starts arguing they’re legally untouchable, either. Then again, most Americans aren’t Democratic state legislators — a breed of public servant that increasingly treats the law as something that applies exclusively to other people.
We’ve seen this movie before. An elected official gets caught doing something any ordinary citizen would simply own up to, and suddenly the excuses start flowing. Victimhood. Conspiracy theories. Creative legal arguments that would make a first-year law student blush. The latest installment might top them all — and it involves a New Hampshire highway, a Toyota Yaris with nearly half a million miles on it, and a constitutional defense so detached from reality it borders on performance art.
From Fox News:
A Democratic New Hampshire lawmaker accused of driving more than 100 mph in one case and 92 mph in another argues a centuries-old provision of the state constitution protected her from being stopped while traveling to or from legislative session, according to court documents obtained by Fox News Digital.
State Rep. Ellen Read argues police unlawfully stopped and detained her because the New Hampshire Constitution protects lawmakers from being “arrested, or held to bail” while attending, traveling to or returning from the General Court. She contends the charges stemmed from an unconstitutional stop and should therefore be dismissed.
Let that marinate for a second. A sitting state representative was allegedly clocked at 107 mph by a Rockingham County deputy. Her defense? Not “I wasn’t going that fast.” Her primary argument was that police lacked the constitutional authority to pull her over at all. Why? Because she was heading home from the legislature. Apparently that makes her untouchable.
Six months later, she got nabbed again — this time doing 92 in a 65 zone. Same defense. Same straight face. Fool me once, apparently.
A 240-year-old provision meets a 440,000-mile Yaris
Read’s legal theory hinges on a 1784 provision of the New Hampshire Constitution stating that no legislator “shall be arrested, or held to bail, on mesne process, during his going to, returning from, or attendance upon, the Court.” In her reading, this means police cannot so much as initiate a traffic stop while she’s commuting to or from legislative duties. Creative interpretation, to put it gently.
Her backup argument is even better. Read’s office insisted that her 2009 Toyota Yaris — sporting over 440,000 miles on the odometer — “simply cannot go that fast.” Even granting that claim, her office later conceded she may have hit 85 mph. Quick math: that’s still twenty over the speed limit. Not the airtight defense she apparently thinks it is.
Constitutional scholars weren’t swayed. The Union Leader reported that the 1784 provision was crafted to prevent political rivals from filing civil lawsuits designed to physically block legislators from reaching the State House for key votes. Traffic immunity? Never part of the equation. Not even close.
A judge agreed. Read was found guilty of negligent driving and fined $1,240. The New Hampshire Supreme Court declined to even entertain her appeal. The legal system, at least, still recognizes that speed limits apply to everyone with a driver’s license — regardless of the plate on the bumper.
Different badge, different rules
The mockery here writes itself. But underneath the comedy lies something genuinely corrosive. Read’s defense isn’t just one eccentric legislator grasping at straws. It’s a window into a mindset that has come to define the modern Democratic political class — the deep, reflexive belief that they simply operate under different standards than the citizens they represent.
“The plain reading of the Constitution says that legislators cannot be stopped on their way to or from their duties,” Read told Fox News Digital. No hedging. No irony. Just pure, uncut entitlement from someone who selectively discovers constitutional originalism the moment it might save her from a speeding fine.
And when the story broke? Read’s office didn’t just address the charges. They floated a conspiracy — suggesting the whole episode was political retaliation for her advocacy work against a domestic violence coalition. Break the rules, claim victimhood, point fingers elsewhere. The playbook never changes.
Worth noting: House Speaker Sherman Packard had already banned Read from Representatives Hall outside of session. Not for the speeding. For verbally abusive behavior toward Senate leadership. A pattern takes shape pretty quickly.
The speed limit applies to everyone
The Founders wrote the Constitution to protect citizens from government overreach — not to hand politicians a golden ticket for doing 107 on the interstate. The next time a Democrat solemnly lectures you about how “nobody is above the law,” remember Ellen Read, her ancient constitutional loophole, and her supposedly feeble Toyota Yaris that somehow keeps getting pulled over at triple-digit speeds.
The Constitution was never meant to be a get-out-of-a-speeding-ticket card. But leave it to a Democrat to try swiping it anyway.
Key Takeaways
- Democratic Rep. Ellen Read invoked a 1784 constitutional provision to dismiss two highway speeding charges — and courts flatly rejected her.
- Constitutional scholars confirm the provision was designed to block political civil lawsuits, not grant traffic immunity.
- Her defense reveals a persistent pattern among Democratic officials: different rules for the ruling class.
- The New Hampshire Supreme Court refused to even hear her appeal, leaving the guilty verdict intact.
Sources: Fox News, UnionLeader.com
