Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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.

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

Pro-Trump protestors
Trump supporters who attempted to overturn the 2020 election results are now seeking influential election oversight roles in battleground states.
Andrew Lichtenstein/Getty Images

Loving Someone Who Thinks the Election Was Stolen

He’s the kind of man you’d want as a neighbor in a storm.

Big guy. Strong hands. The person you’d call if your car slid into a ditch. He lives rural, works hard, supports a wife and young son, and helps care for his aging mom. Life has not been easy, but he shows up anyway.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025 Drives Trump’s State Dept Overhaul

U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on December 15, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Project 2025 Drives Trump’s State Dept Overhaul

In May 2025, I wrote about the Trump administration’s early State Department reforms aligned with Project 2025, including calls for budget cuts, mission closures, and policy realignments. At the time, the most controversial move was an executive order targeting the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), shutting it down and freezing all federal foreign aid. This decision reflected Project 2025’s recommendation to scale back and "deradicalize" USAID by eliminating programs deemed overly politicized or inconsistent with conservative values. The report specifically criticized USAID for funding progressive initiatives, such as policies addressing systemic racism and central economic planning, arguing that U.S. foreign aid had become a "massive and open-ended global entitlement program" benefiting left-leaning organizations. The process connecting the report’s ideological critiques to this executive action involved a strategic alignment between key administration officials and Project 2025 architects, who lobbied for immediate policy adjustments. This coalition effectively linked the critique to policy by framing it as a necessary step toward realigning foreign aid with national interests and conservative principles.

Back then, I predicted even more sweeping changes to the State Department. Since May, several major developments have indeed reshaped the department:

Keep ReadingShow less
SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.
apples and bananas in brown cardboard box
Photo by Maria Lin Kim on Unsplash

SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.

Millions of families just survived the longest shutdown in U.S. history. Now they’re bracing again as politicians turn food assistance into a bargaining chip.

Food assistance should not be subject to politics, yet the Trump administration is now requiring over 20 Democratic-led states to share sensitive SNAP recipient data—including Social Security and immigration details—or risk losing funding. Officials call it "program integrity," but the effect is clear: millions of low-income families may once again have their access to food threatened by political disputes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections
us a flag on white concrete building

Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections

Earlier this year, I reported on Democrats’ redistricting wins in 2025, highlighting gains in states like California and North Carolina. As of December 18, the landscape has shifted again, with new maps finalized, ongoing court battles, and looming implications for the 2026 midterms.

Here are some key developments since mid‑2025:

  • California: Voters approved Proposition 50 in November, allowing legislature‑drawn maps that eliminated three safe Republican seats and made two more competitive. Democrats in vulnerable districts were redrawn into friendlier territory.
  • Virginia: On December 15, Democrats in the House of Delegates pushed a constitutional amendment on redistricting during a special session. Republicans denounced the move as unconstitutional, setting up a legal and political fight ahead of the 2026 elections.
  • Other states in play:
    • Ohio, Texas, Utah, Missouri, North Carolina: New maps are already in effect, reshaping battlegrounds.
    • Florida and Maryland: Legislatures have begun steps toward redistricting, though maps are not yet finalized.
    • New York: Court challenges may force changes to existing maps before 2026.
    • National picture: According to VoteHub’s tracker, the current district breakdown stands at 189 Democratic‑leaning, 205 Republican‑leaning, and 41 highly competitive seats.

Implications for 2026

  • Democrats’ wins in California and North Carolina strengthen their position, but legal challenges in Virginia and New York could blunt momentum.
  • Republicans remain favored in Texas and Ohio, where maps were redrawn to secure GOP advantages.
  • The unusually high number of mid‑decade redistricting efforts — not seen at this scale since the 1800s — underscores how both parties are aggressively shaping the battlefield for 2026.
So, here's the BIG PICTURE: The December snapshot shows Democrats still benefiting from redistricting in key states, but the fight is far from settled. With courts weighing in and legislatures maneuvering, the balance of power heading into the 2026 House elections remains fluid. What began as clear Democratic wins earlier in 2025 has evolved into a multi‑front contest over maps, legality, and political control.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network