If voters are as tight-fisted on the subject at next month’s election as they have been for most of the last 36 years, a proposed $12,000 pay raise for legislators is doomed.

Prop. 300 asks Arizonans to accept or reject a recommendation of the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers that legislative salaries be increased to $36,000 a year from $24,000, starting in January. The increase would cost the general fund $1,236,200 a year – $1,080,000 for the raise itself and $156,200 for benefit-related expenses.

Voters have had their say on legislative salaries 14 times since they approved the first year-round salary (of $6,000) in 1968. They approved an increase to $15,000 in 1980 and another increase to $24,000 in 1998. In the 12 other elections where the question was on the ballot they said no, often by two to one margins.

Most recently, in 2002, they turned down a $12,000 raise by a vote of 391,902 yes to 771,274 no.

A recent poll indicates they’ll say no again, though it does suggest the possibility of a closer contest. Of 553 registered voters surveyed last month by KAET-TV/Channel 8 at Arizona State University, 47 per cent said they would vote against the salary increase this year, with 36 per cent favoring the raise and 17 per cent undecided. The question asked was, “Proposition 300 would increase the salaries of state legislators from $24,000 to $36,000 per year. Will you probably vote for or against this initiative?

Historic Note

When the salary commission was created in 1970 to make regular recommendations for pay raises for elected state officials, there was no thought, initially, of involving voters. The commission’s recommendations would go to the governor, who would change them as she saw fit and pass them to the Legislature, which would make any changes it wanted and whatever survived would be the raises.

The state’s leading political writer, Bernie Wynn of The Arizona Republic, saw a problem. The Legislature might well keep a lid on salaries of the governor and others, he wrote, but if it had the power to set its own salaries, the sky would be the limit. The only solution, he said, was to require all legislative salary increases to go to voters.

The result has been that while other elective officials have seen more or less regular increases, legislators have been all but frozen out.

Arguments For, Against

The percentage in favor of the raise in the KAET poll was close to the positive rating for the Legislature reported in another survey.

Thirty-four per cent of those surveyed in July in the Behavior Research Center’s Rocky Mountain Poll had a favorable opinion of the Legislature, up 9 percentage points from April. The poll interviewed 701 adults, including 515 registered voters. The question then was, “I’d like to read you the names of some public officials. As I read each one, please just tell me if you think the job they are doing in office is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?”

Meantime, arguments are being presented on both sides of the issue.

In a statement that appears on the ballot against the raise, the Arizona Farm Bureau Federation says a 50 per cent pay hike is too large.

“It is simply too much to expect voters to support such a large one-time increase,” the federation says. “With due respect, the Commission . . . should reconsider with more real-world thoughtfulness.”

Even smaller raises, however, have been defeated. In 1994 the salary commission recommended a $4,750 raise, and that was defeated three to two.

This year the commission discussed reducing the $36,000 recommendation, but a motion by Commissioner Randie Stein died for lack of a second.

She said legislative pay is “a barrier” against running for the Legislature but suggested holding the proposed raise to $29,000 to make it more palatable to voters.

Commissioner Lonnie Williams said, “If we go at $29,000, we . . . . rationalize it by politics, and I think that’s beyond the scope of the commission.”

Lawmakers: Some Can’t Afford To Serve

At the time, Sen. Pete Rios, D-23, said the $36,000 recommendation would not fly.

“The jump is too huge,” he said. “If they’d have done small increases over the years, there was the possibility of those being approved.”

Mr. Rios and other current legislators said they will vote for Prop. 300 but predicted it won’t pass.

“Although crying in the wilderness on this one, I think the increase should be approved,” said Rep. Steve Yarbrough, who has no opposition in his District 21 run for re-election.

“The job requires full-time service for approximately six months per year and a substantial time the other six months,” Mr. Yarbrough said.

Rep. Pete Hershberger, R-26, says the pay raise won’t pass “because I believe the public in general is dissatisfied and apathetic toward the Legislature and the legislative process.

“Look at the primary election turnout as evidence of this,” said Mr. Hershberger, who is in a four-way race for two House seats in his district. “Through the years, Arizona has lost some quality legislators due to low pay. That, combined with term limits, deprives Arizona from having the best Legislature it possibly can.”

Sen. Robert Cannell, D-24, backs Prop. 300, saying the salary should be at a level where “Arizonans from all walks of life can afford to serve in the state Legislature.” He has a Libertarian opponent in the general election.

Senate President Ken Bennett, R-1, says he will vote for Prop. 300 because “good legislators are worth more than $24,000 a year.” But, he adds, “It is unfortunate that because increases occur rather infrequently, the amount of the raise (50 per cent) is larger than what sounds reasonable.”

About 29 per cent of current 90 legislators list their occupations as legislator or retired, and 18 per cent of the 72 challengers in the general election did not list an occupation or are retired.

Rep. Linda Lopez, D-29, says “financial constraints” forced two representatives to leave the House this year, and it is difficult for legislators to find a part-time job to supplement their legislative salary.

“It’s a lot to ask an employer,” said Ms. Lopez, who is unopposed in the general election.

Republican Les Thompson, who is challenging Sen. Marsha Arzberger for the District 25 Senate seat, is completing his third term as Cochise County Supervisor. He says he’ll take a 50 per cent pay cut if he’s elected, but he supports Prop. 300.

“If salary was a big issue with me, I’d stay with the board of supervisors,” he said.

Arizona Chamber Backs Raise; Governor, Some Lawmakers Do Not

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce argues for Prop. 300 in a statement that appears in the state’s official publicity pamphlet.

“Arizona’s 30 senators and 60 state representatives are often subjected to cynical cheap shots from critics and seldom get the credit they deserve for doing a difficult and often-time thankless job,” the chamber says.

Governor Napolitano opposed the commission’s recommended raises for legislators and for her own job [to $160,000 from $95,000] in an Aug. 23 interview with Arizona Capitol Times. “I’m not in support of the raises,” she said then. “We have to show that we work better and more efficiently at all levels before raises can be justified.”

Rep. Doug Quelland, R-10, sides with Ms. Napolitano on legislative and gubernatorial pay hikes, saying legislators are not underpaid.

“I plan to vote against it because, like the governor, I too am taking a vow of poverty,” he said. “If the
truth were known, I would fulfill this elected office at no charge.

Mr. Quelland, who is in a four-way race for two House seats, says that if his wife, a public school teacher, were to resign, she might not be replaced.

“However, if I resign today, there will be four to eight people . . .. wanting to be appointed,” Mr. Quelland said. “And my salary is not even close to that of a public school teacher. I think we have our priorities mixed up. I think our teachers are underpaid, but I don’t think I am.”

Sen. Jorge Garcia, D-27, says he has voted against legislative pay raises in the past and will do so again this year.

“It’s a perennial question, and I suggest that all of us knew what the salary was when we ran for office,” he said. “Instead, I would like to have the additional dollars be designated for constituent services . . .”

Mr. Garcia won his primary race and is unopposed in the general election.

Reps. Mark Thompson, R-17, and Wally Straughn, D-15, tied their remarks on Prop. 300 to state employee salaries.

Mr. Thompson said salary increases for legislators “should be commensurate to the general salary increases for state employees,” most of whom received a $1,000 raise this year from the Legislature.

Mr. Thompson, also in a four-way race for two House seats, said he will not support a $12,000 raise for lawmakers.

Mr. Straughn, who lost his bid for re-election in the primary, said, “Until the Legislature agrees to pay state employees an equitable salary, their [legislators’] pay should not be increased.”

Rep. Karen Johnson, running unopposed for the District 18 Senate seat, says the state is “still in a serious financial condition,” and there should be no raises for state elected officials and judges.

Sen. Jim Weiers, R-10, who has chosen to leave the Senate after one term and is considered a leading candidate for House speaker, says legislative raises should be rejected as long as the state has a budget deficit.

“If it’s not enough money, go get a job somewhere else,” he added.

Rep. Sylvia Laughter, an independent who represents the large District 2 in northern Arizona, says she supports Prop. 300 because it is needed to reimburse rural legislators for their travel expenses.

“I think it’s a great idea,” said Ms. Laughter, who faces two Democrats in the general election.

Per Diem Pay

In addition to a salary, lawmakers receive a per diem for meals and travel expenses. Paid every day of a legislative session and for working days out of session, it’s $35 for Maricopa County legislators and $60 for those from other counties. The per diem rate is cut to $10 for Maricopa County lawmakers and to $20 for others when the session exceeds 120 days. The last year a regular session ran under 120 days was 2000, when lawmakers finished in 100 days. Since then the regular sessions have run 123, 130, 158 and, this year, 136 days.—