Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Compensation commissions can fix the state legislative pay problem

Chart showing mechanisms for setting state legislator compensation

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

An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less
Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.

(Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)

Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”

In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.

Keep ReadingShow less
DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less