State Rep. Ellen Read, a Democrat from New Hampshire, is facing charges of speeding after she was stopped by authorities on two separate occasions. According to court documents, Read argues that a centuries-old provision of the state constitution protected her from being stopped while traveling to or from legislative session.
The provision in question, which was ratified in 1784, states that no member of the House of Representatives or Senate shall be arrested or held to bail during their going to, returning from, or attendance upon the Court. Read's petition argues that this provision was intended to prevent local officials from delaying lawmakers and interfering with legislative votes.
According to Read, the provision was not meant to exempt legislators from criminal liability, but rather to protect their commute to and from legislative duties. She argues that lawmakers should receive the same "functional analysis" applied to police officers or emergency medical technicians who violate traffic laws while performing official duties.
Read was first stopped in December 2024 after authorities alleged she drove more than 100 mph on Interstate 93 in Windham. A second case followed in June 2025, when authorities accused her of driving 92 mph in a 65 mph zone in Londonderry. Read argued that she was driving a vehicle displaying a New Hampshire State Representative license plate and told officers she was returning from a legislative session.
Read's petition argues that the New Hampshire Supreme Court has never interpreted the scope of the provision in the roughly 240 years since it was ratified, calling it a constitutional question of first impression. A judge rejected her argument in the first speeding case, and she was found guilty of negligent driving in August 2025 and fined $1,240.
Read later asked the New Hampshire Supreme Court to take up the constitutional question before the second speeding case proceeded, but the court declined, denying her petition without prejudice. Read defended her handling of the case, saying she accepted the reduced negligent driving charge to end the case and did not appeal the constitutional issue.
The case has sparked debate over the interpretation of the state constitution and the role of lawmakers in traffic laws. Read's office has disputed allegations that she exceeded 100 mph, arguing that the officer did not use radar or clock her speed and instead estimated it while accelerating to catch up to her vehicle.
Read's challenge focuses on the legality of the traffic stops rather than the underlying charges. She argues that the unconstitutional manner of the stops, and not the charge, was the topic of discussion in the case. The outcome of the case is yet to be determined.
