Voters have to OK Arizona legislator pay increase. 2 proposals could be headed to ballot

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs says when she was a state senator a decade ago, she was making $24,000 a year.

"It wasn't enough,'' she said in a recent message to followers while asking for money for her reelection campaign.

But Hobbs, now governor and making $95,000 a year, is showing a lot less sympathy to lawmakers who are still being paid that same $24,000.

"It's certainly not sustainable to live on $24,000 a year,'' she said in response to a question from Capitol Media Services. "But it is intended to be a part-time salary,'' with sessions lasting just four months a year, at least according to legislative rules, though that hasn't happened in years.

Still, Hobbs acknowledged, it ends up "being more of a full-time job,” with other legislative obligations throughout the rest of the year.

But don't look for the governor to champion any of the various efforts being proposed this year to voters – who under the Arizona Constitution now get the final say on salaries. And the reason is strictly political.

"I think if they want Arizonans to pay them more, they need to show up, they need to present their budget, they need to work with me to get a 123 (education fund extension) passed so we can fund public schools,'' Hobbs said. "That way, they can make the case for voters to give them more.''

For their part, the Republicans who control both the House and Senate contend it is the Democratic governor who is keeping issues from being resolved.

They say her $17.8 billion budget proposal is based on unrealistic revenue predictions, like getting $760 million in reimbursement from the federal government for money spent on border security. And then there are proposals with no realistic chance of support in the GOP legislature, like putting income caps on families who want taxpayer funds to homeschool or send their children to private and parochial schools in an effort to save $80 million.

And then there's the fact that it was Hobbs who walked away from budget negotiations.

But none of that is keeping lawmakers from proposing various ways to convince voters to approve plans that would raise their salaries, in some cases by quite a lot.

The current constitutional language says a special commission is supposed to meet regularly and make recommendations for legislative salaries. But anything the panel proposes has to be ratified at the ballot.

Voters approved the last raise in 1998, taking the pay from $15,000 to the current $24,000. Since then, there have been several attempts to boost the pay, but all were rejected. And the commission hasn't met in years because of the failure of state officials – including the governor – to appoint new members.

There are currently five proposals that would ask voters to scrap that system. Each of them, upon voter approval, would eliminate the need for lawmakers to ask voters for future pay hikes.

The following proposals are broken down by sponsor.

Bolick: Senators benefit

Republican Sen. Shawnna Bolick crafted one rather complex proposal to send to voters. It would set the salaries of state senators at 30% of what members of Congress are paid, which is presently $174,000. Using that calculation, a state senator would earn $52,200. Bolick’s proposal would have state representatives getting half of what senators get, which at current levels amounts to $26,100.

Her SCR 1050 would give state senators four-year terms, leaving representatives at two. It would also prohibit lawmakers from quitting to take jobs in any position created while they were in office and for four years after that. It would remove drunk and reckless driving from the list of offenses for which lawmakers cannot be arrested during session.

And legislative candidates would have to list on the ballot their education level, any vocational training, professional licenses, whether they served in the military and were honorably discharged, and whether they actually voted in the last three general elections.

Her proposal, however, never got a hearing.

Travers: $35K plus cost-of-living

Phoenix Rep. Stacey Travers proposed asking voters to set the salary at $35,000, with automatic cost-of-living increases after that.

To sweeten the deal for voters, her HCR 2002 sought to limit legislative tenure to no more than eight years in the Senate and eight years in the House.

There are current eight-year limits, but no prohibition against lawmakers going back and forth between the chambers forever.

Her bill, too, never got a hearing.

Mathis: Lawmakers decide

Tucson Democratic Rep. Chris Mathis simply wanted to ask voters to give up their right to ratify legislative salaries and leave it to lawmakers themselves.

His HCR 2025 never got a hearing.

2 measures advance

One of two measures advancing in the legislature is a proposal by Sen John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) to change the Arizona Constitution to replace the requirement for voter approval of pay hike proposals with automatic inflation indexing.

But what SCR 1020 does not make absolutely clear is that this indexing, if approved in November, would not be prospective only. Instead, it would require a computation going back to that last pay raise in 1998.

Kavanagh said that approach is appropriate. He says that voters, in approving the $24,000 salary at that time, decided that was appropriate compensation. Kavanagh said all his measure does is respect the will of the voters that $24,000 (in 1998 dollars) is appropriate compensation.

That, however, still leaves the fact that $24,000 in 1998 dollars translates out to about $48,000 now. And that could prove too much of a one-time jump for some voters.

The other measure also awaiting further legislative action is SCR 1012.

Sponsored by Sen. David Gowan (R-Sierra Vista), SCR 1012 would replace the current commission – the one that hasn't met in years because of lack of appointments – with a different panel chaired by the chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court and made up of members chosen by Democratic and Republican legislative leaders.

They would recommend an appropriate salary for all state elected officials, from the governor on down, but not for legislators. And their recommendations would become law unless amended or rejected by the legislature.

And legislative salaries? They would be set automatically at 60% of whatever the governor makes – a provision that could encourage lawmakers to accept the panel's recommendation, as it would affect their own pay, with the added political advantage of not actually having to vote publicly for their own pay.

Right now, the governor makes $95,000. So if nothing else changed, that would boost legislative pay to $57,000.

No other state pays its governor so little. If SCR 1012 goes on the ballot and is adopted, that potentially could create pressure on the commission to boost the salary and, by extension, the legislative pay tied to it.

But Hobbs, after questioning whether lawmakers deserve more money, sidestepped the question of what she believes is a proper salary for whoever is governor of Arizona.

"It's not up to me to decide,'' she said.

"I talk to Arizonans every day who are struggling,'' the governor said. "And they make a lot less than I do as governor.''

Hobbs, however, said she won't be making the same promise as gubernatorial hopeful Hugh Lytle, who is hoping to secure the No Labels nomination for governor. He has promised that, if elected, he would donate his entire salary to a qualified charity.

"I cannot afford to do that because I am not a billionaire,'' Hobbs said.

A campaign spokesman for Lytle said he is not a billionaire but merely a multi-millionaire.