Sen. John Kavanagh says he simply wants to ask voters to ensure that lawmaker salaries keep pace with inflation.
But the measure that the Fountain Hills Republican wants to put on the 2026 ballot actually would do more than create future inflationary adjustments to the current $24,000 salary. Much more.
That's because Kavanagh crafted his SCR 1003 to be retroactive to the last time voters approved a salary increase. That was 1998.
And given the inflation that has occurred since then, voter approval of his plan in 2026 would immediately turn that $24,000 figure into $48,000 — or more.
Kavanagh, however, said that increase is justified given the lack of any adjustment in what lawmakers earn in the last 27 years.
“That is what voters wanted us to have when they voted in 1998,” he said.
“I do not think those voters wanted their $24,000 raise diluted by inflation to about $11,000,” he said, based on his calculations of how the buying power of that 1998 figure has decreased.
What voters want, however, may be a bit difficult to discern.
Under the Arizona Constitution, lawmakers cannot set their own salaries.
Instead, the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers is supposed to meet on a biennial basis to make recommendations for legislative salaries, recommendations that can be enacted only with voter approval.
That's how the $15,000 salary paid to lawmakers until 1998 was increased to $24,000.
Voters did have a chance to boost it since then, with commission making recommendations to set the wages at various times between $30,000 and $36,000 in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008. All were rejected by voters. So the salary remains at $24,000.
And since then?
Then-Gov. Jan Brewer refused to name members to the panel for four years, saying it was inappropriate to consider pay hikes for elected officials during “difficult times.” She did finally make selections in time for the issue to be put on the 2014 ballot, though she openly opposed a proposal to boost pay to $35,000 that was approved by just 32% of voters.
Since then, however, the commission has made no recommendations.
Kavanagh said if his measure is approved, it scraps once and for all the need for the commission to consider the issue. Salaries would keep pace with inflation without further voter input.
But that still leaves the retroactivity provision in SCR 1003. More to the point, it would be asking voters to approve a salary in the $48,000 range when they had previously, albeit not recently, rejected far lower figures.
Kavanagh said he's not worried that voters will be scared off once they learn the size of the salary boost they are being asked to approve. He said they will understand that lawmakers simply want to keep their pay even with inflation, even if back-dating the measure makes up for decades where voters didn't see fit to give them raises.
The proposal has gained preliminary approval of the Senate and now needs a roll-call vote before going to the House. As a ballot measure, it would not need approval of Gov. Katie Hobbs.
Legislative pay has been a bipartisan concern for years.
On paper, being a lawmaker is supposed to be a part-time job from January into April. But sessions have lasted into June and beyond. And there are legislative hearings and constituent meetings throughout much of the rest of the year.
That has made it difficult for some individuals who need other jobs to serve.
Most recently, Mesa Democratic Sen. Eva Burch, just reelected to a second term last year, announced she is quitting effective this coming Friday due, in part, to the low pay.
Kavanagh said one problem with the current system is that the outcome of any vote could depend on a lot more than whether lawmakers actually deserve a raise.
“Very often, the mood of the public based on other events the Legislature's associated with sometimes determines whether they're for us or against us,” Kavanagh said.
Put another way, his plan would make it irrelevant whether voters like or hate what lawmakers are doing.
And there's something else.
Kavanagh pointed out that Arizonans voted twice, in 2006 and 2016, to make automatic adjustments in the state's minimum wage.
“If the voters said inflation's OK for the minimum wage, I don't think voters would be opposed to this,” Kavanagh said.