Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Compensation commissions can fix the state legislative pay problem

Conte is the communications manager for RepresentWomen. Scaglia is the research manager for RepresentWomen.

From meeting with constituents to passing legislation to taking care of their families, state legislators routinely spend well over 40 hours a week serving their communities. This commitment, regardless of gender or if the legislature is full- or part-time, is often a determining factor in who runs for and stays in office.



The legislative pay problem

The “perennial pay problem,” as we call it in our recent report “Salaries of State: Modernizing State Legislatures through Compensation Commissions,” is by no means new. State legislative pay has been a contentious topic for decades, with little standardization on whether legislatures should be part-time or full-time, citizen or career legislatures.

As a result, legislator compensation varies wildly between states. For example, California’s legislators are paid $140,000 on the high end, and New Mexico’s legislators are uncompensated for their service.

Chart showing legislators' compensation by state

Our findings are clear: Higher pay benefits legislators and constituents alike, as it increases elected officials’ capacity to govern. Without a need for additional employment to cover costs like child care, legislators are more productive, miss fewer votes, and introduce more bills.

Legislators or voters setting salaries exacerbates the perennial pay problem. Perhaps counterintuitively, legislators have little incentive to raise their wages because they will likely be penalized at the ballot box. Voters are also unlikely to propose or approve an increase in legislator pay, as they may feel this is unfair or unwarranted.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Better pay means legislators have more time to solve the issues faced by those who elected them. Fair pay also means legislators will be more responsive to constituent concerns and less incentivized to give in to special interests.

Fair pay enables more women to serve

Ensuring fair pay is also crucial for a second reason: Without a livable wage, legislators, particularly women, cannot serve in office for a long time.

Women routinely face more household, financial, and caregiving responsibilities than men, making balancing two jobs much more difficult. Without enough compensation to sustain themselves and their families, women often report waiting until they are retired, no longer have young children, or are financially independent to run for office.

Fair representation in political office is vital to a truly representative democracy. Women account for 51 percent of the U.S. population but only 33 percent of state legislators. Moreover, women’s representation is unevenly distributed between states: 60 percent of Nevada’s Legislature is women, while West Virginia’s Legislature has just 12 percent women. Only two states, Nevada and Arizona, have reached or surpassed gender parity in the legislature.

Chart showing the number of women in state legislatures, by cycle

Legislative outcomes are shaped by more than who holds office. Decision makers shape which policy and legislative issues are discussed in the first place. Multiple studies show the benefits of having women in the workplace, and politics is no different. Elected officials legislate based on lived experience; with women at the decision-making table, their problems are less likely to be left at the bottom of the agenda.

Compensation commissions are a viable solution

RepresenWomen research finds that compensation commissions remove many of the barriers legislators face when working to increase pay directly and facilitate a diverse political environment where more women are incentivized to run for office and have the

means to stay once elected. Independent compensation commissions are already used in 22 states, though each state may have specific rules and regulations on managing legislator pay.

Depending on the state, commission recommendations may take effect automatically, need legislator approval, or go to voters via ballot measure. Regardless, this is a much more viable pathway than legislators or voters setting pay.

Compensation commissions remove bias — commission members obtain no benefits from increasing (or decreasing) legislator salaries, reassuring voters that their legislators are paid fairly without outside influences. Commissions also monitor external factors impacting salaries, such as automatic cost-of-living adjustments. This can be especially useful when unexpected events impact state budgets, a common issue in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Voters favor establishing compensation commissions. Polling by Common Cause New Mexico shows that most voters (62 percent) approve of independent salary commissions taking charge of compensation setting, and an even more significant majority (72 percent) want legislators removed from this process.

Compensation commission rules matter

Establishing a compensation commission is the first step to ensuring fair pay for legislators. Commission rules and regulations directly impact its success in reducing bias and raising wages. In states where recommendations don’t take effect automatically and need additional legislative approval, necessary salary changes are much less likely to happen. This is unsurprising, as legislator approval defeats the purpose of having a third-party compensation commission in the first place.

Kansas, one of the case studies in our report, provides a perfect example. Before 1998, the Kansas Compensation Commission required legislative approval on salary increases for legislators, leading to stalled wages. In 1999, after a rule change, salary recommendations went into effect automatically, increasing legislative salaries. In 2023, additional recommendations were made to boost legislator pay by a third-party compensation commission and were met with great success. Kansas legislators will see a salary increase in 2025 that brings pay from $22,000 to $43,000, slightly above the Midwestern median income of $41,000.

Take action! Contact your legislators,

Higher compensation for state legislators is undoubtedly necessary and deserved. Legislators’ dedication to their work and constituents should not be undervalued. Furthermore, constituents want policymakers with the financial resources and governing capacity to remain in office. For women, low wages are one of the determining factors that prevent them from seeking office in the first place.

The United States is already on an inconsistent path toward political gender balance. Without systems solutions that level the playing field for women, we are unlikely to achieve gender parity within our lifetimes. Our report provides solutions to some systemic reforms needed to ensure women can run, win, and lead in their communities. Contact your legislators directly to encourage them to learn how they intend to support legislature modernization.

Read More

Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard on stage

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to be the director of national intelligence.

Adam J. Dewey/Anadolu via Getty Images

How a director of national intelligence helps a president stay on top of threats from around the world

In all the arguments over whether President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for director of national intelligence is fit for the job, it’s easy to lose sight of why it matters.

It matters a lot. To speak of telling truth to power seems terribly old-fashioned these days, but as a veteran of White House intelligence operations, I know that is the essence of the job.

Keep ReadingShow less
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Peter W. Stevenson /The Washington Post via Getty Images

How RFK Jr. could reverse our nation’s foolish approach to obesity

The river was swift and unrelenting, its currents carrying victim after victim downstream. Local villagers responded by stringing nets across the water to prevent further drownings. Yet, despite their efforts, the death toll continued to rise.

Eventually, a newcomer to the village asked a simple yet critical question: “Why are people falling into the river in the first place?” Following the water upstream, the villagers discovered the source of the problem: a crumbling bridge sending person after person into the rapids.

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting with signs

Hundreds of supporters of trans rights rallied outside the Supreme Court on Dec. 4. The court will consider a case determining whether bans on gender-affirming care for children are unconstitutional.

Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Supreme Court ruling on trans care is literally life or death for teens

Last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether banning essential health care for trans youth is constitutional. What the justices (and lawmakers in many states) probably don’t realize is that they’re putting teenage lives at risk when they increase anti-trans measures. A recent report linked anti-transgender laws to increased teen suicide attempts among trans and gender-expansive youth.

In some cases, attempted suicide rates increased by an astonishing 72 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mother offering a glass of water to her toddler son.
vitapix/Getty Images

Water fluoridation helps prevent tooth decay – how growing opposition threatens a 70-year-old health practice

Driving through downtown Dallas, you might see a striking banner hanging at the U-turn bridge, near the Walnut Hill exit on Central Expressway (US 75): “Stop Fluoridation!” Below it, other banners demand action and warn of supposed dangers.

It’s not the first time fluoride has been at the center of public debate.

Fluoride alternatives

For those who prefer to avoid fluoride, there are alternatives to consider. But they come with challenges.

Fluoride-free toothpaste is one option, but it is less effective at preventing cavities compared with fluoride-containing products. Calcium-based treatments, like hydroxyapatite toothpaste, are gaining popularity as a fluoride alternative, though research on their effectiveness is still limited.

Diet plays a crucial role too. Cutting back on sugary snacks and drinks can significantly reduce the risk of cavities. Incorporating foods like crunchy vegetables, cheese and yogurt into your diet can help promote oral health by stimulating saliva production and providing essential nutrients that strengthen tooth enamel.

However, these lifestyle changes require consistent effort and education – something not all people or communities have access to.

Community programs like dental sealant initiatives can also help, especially for children. Sealants are thin coatings applied to the chewing surfaces of teeth, preventing decay in high-risk areas. While effective, these programs are more resource-intensive and can’t replicate the broad, passive benefits of water fluoridation.

Ultimately, alternatives exist, but they place a greater burden on people and might not address the needs of the most vulnerable populations.

Should fluoridation be a personal choice?

The argument that water fluoridation takes away personal choice is one of the most persuasive stances against its use. Why not leave fluoride in toothpaste and mouthwash, giving people the freedom to use it or not, some argue.

This perspective is understandable, but it overlooks the broader goals of public health. Fluoridation is like adding iodine to salt or vitamin D to milk. These are measures that prevent widespread health issues in a simple, cost-effective way. Such interventions aren’t about imposing choices; they’re about providing a baseline of protection for everyone.

Without fluoridated water, low-income communities would bear the brunt of increased dental disease. Children, in particular, would suffer more cavities, leading to pain, missed school days and costly treatments. Public health policies aim to prevent these outcomes while balancing individual freedoms with collective well-being.

For those who wish to avoid fluoride, alternatives like bottled or filtered water are available. At the same time, policymakers should continue to ensure that fluoridation levels are safe and effective, addressing concerns transparently to build trust.

As debates about fluoride continue, the main question is how to best protect everyone’s oral health. While removing fluoride might appeal to those valuing personal choice, it risks undoing decades of progress against tooth decay.

Whether through fluoridation or other methods, oral health remains a public health priority. Addressing it requires thoughtful, evidence-based solutions that ensure equity, safety and community well-being.The Conversation

Noureldin is a clinical professor of cariology, prevention and restorative dentistry at Texas A&M University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Keep ReadingShow less