EDITORIAL: State lawmakers should earn a salary before drawing paychecks

Once a year, important times for the people of the state, a festive mood overtakes a section of Santa Fe, and it somehow washes over the entire town and state. It’s the time of year our Legislature meets to do the people’s business, which it does for 30 days or 60 days on alternating years.

No doubt it’s a time for business, serious business. And for festivities that showcase the unique and powerful culture of one of America’s most colorful states.

Welcome to Santa Fe, home of the only unsalaried Legislature in the United States. It’s certainly not the only part-time legislature — many others meet for a month or two out of the year — while few meet full time.

Why not meet year-round?

Watching the daily legislative sessions, there certainly doesn’t seem to be a sense of urgency requiring a 21st century Legislature to meet 21st century challenges.

Lawmakers waste vast amounts of time during legislative sessions doing such things as introducing family members, interns and job shadowers; watching performances; gazing at celebrities; reciting long memorials; recognizing local sporting teams and dance groups; singing birthday songs to each other; telling stale Dad jokes and generally lounging about.

There’s a reason they say politics is the vocation for actors who aren’t good-looking and comics who aren’t funny.

Watching the opening ceremonies of the daily legislative sessions can be agonizing, in-person or online.

Then, there’s the question of the need for a full-time Legislature in a post-legislative era — when an unchecked chief executive governs via emergency powers and executive boards. The governor’s hand-picked Environmental Improvement Board adopted electric vehicle sales mandates in November, not lawmakers. The Construction Industries Division, a division of the New Mexico Regulation & Licensing Department, in January mandated EV charging infrastructure at almost every new construction project in the state, not lawmakers. More and more, the real lawmaking takes place at the level of boards, commissions and state agencies through rule-making.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, lawmakers had absolutely no official input in the governor’s emergency public health orders. And they were largely OK with that. Yet they continue to whine about not getting a paycheck from taxpayers. Earning one would be a good start.

Why pay an acquiescent group of lawmakers who take their orders from the Governor’s Office? They don’t need 30 or 60 days to pass the governor’s agenda every year. They could do that in three to six days and get back to their communities and perform real jobs.

After all, what do House Speaker Javier Martínez, Senate Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham disagree on? They’re all Albuquerque Democrats with virtually the same liberal agendas. Not paying all 112 state lawmakers a salary saves taxpayers a lot of money.

The idea of legislative salaries has been around for nearly two decades. We’ve had study after study about salaries, lengthening sessions and increasing staffing, with bill after bill. It’s a perennial issue at the Roundhouse. And it’s unfortunately back in style this session, with lawmakers trying to decide whether to lay it at the feet of the voters in the form of a referendum.

House Joint Resolution 7, which sits on the House calendar on the last weekend of this year’s 30-day session, proposes “to amend Article 4 of the Constitution of New Mexico ... to create a citizen commission ... to authorize payment of legislative salaries.”

The idea is to submit a proposal for legislative salaries to a people’s referendum, either at the next general election or by a special election. Rewriting the state Constitution is needed because it bars lawmakers from receiving any “compensation, perquisite or allowance” other than the generous per diem of $194 a day they currently receive for lodging, meals and incidental costs for attending legislative sessions and legislative committee meetings between sessions. The Constitution also provides for a mileage reimbursement.

Recent polling shows support for longer sessions, paid staff and paying legislators, with descending popularity, respectively. Talk of “modernizing the Legislature” goes over pretty well — until you ask voters how much they should fork out.

A review of legislative pay in other states shows only a few states pay lawmakers large salaries, and those salaries reflect the three types of legislatures in the U.S.: part-time, hybrid and full-time.

This is the difference, according to governing.com:

“Part-time chambers are home to citizen legislators who — by design — do not quit their day jobs and stay connected to the communities they serve. In hybrid legislatures, the workload expands in doing the public’s business but outside work is still the norm. In full-time legislatures, members are expected to dedicate the lion’s share of their time and attention to state business. Pay and staffing levels are commensurate with the span of duties.”

Twenty-four states have hybrid legislatures, 16 part time, and 10 full time. Again: just 10 states meet full time. Ballotpedia says on average part-time legislators are paid about $19,000.

New York lawmakers, who are full time, lead the way in legislative pay at $142,000 a year, according to Ballotpedia’s list of 2023 pay. State lawmakers in Alaska this year bumped themselves up a bit with a 67% salary increase.

Legislative salaries have broad support from the Democratic Party, which controls New Mexico’s House and Senate with super-majorities. Most Republican lawmakers oppose the suggestion, many correctly noting that public service should be voluntary, not profitable.

The Republican position — quaint by today’s political brawler standards — promotes the idea of a citizen-legislature, uncorrupted by professional lawmakers. A citizen legislator is preferable to one sequestered in the halls of the Roundhouse and surrounded by lobbyists and special interest groups year-round.

Still, proponents make a valid point that serving in the Roundhouse shouldn’t be limited to only those who have the financial means. The sticking point is how much?

Even modest salaries could cost taxpayers at least $10 million a year. A full-time salary, which we hope is off the table, would ratchet up that number — but there’s really no telling how much, especially as lawmakers jockey for ways to spend record tax revenues.

If New Mexico lawmakers insist on getting salaries, and they apparently will until they get a real job, we should take note of the salaries of part-time legislators in other states, which average $19K a year. That’s hardly a full-time salary that could support a full-time lawmaker and family. But we’re not expecting them to work full time in Santa Fe. Nineteen-thousand dollars is pretty good pay for 30 or 60 days of work.

A modest pay bump may be in order, but nothing on the magnitude of New York is warranted. We’re one of the smallest states in the nation, not one of the largest.

New Mexico lawmakers — in their feckless, acquiescent and playful state — don’t deserve large six-figure salaries. They’re simply not worth it, especially times 112.

Lawmaker salaries are still worth looking into, but with clear caps on how far we’re willing to go spending taxpayer money now and in the future.