New Mexico is the only state that does not give its lawmakers a salary. But that could change if voters pass Constitutional Amendment 4 in this election. If it passes, lawmakers would receive a salary equal to the median household income for New Mexico, which is currently $68,000, starting in 2029. KUNM spoke with University of New Mexico political science professor Tim Krebs who said those against the amendment see the positions as a volunteer service.
TIM KREBS: By paying legislators a salary, it's moving down the road of professionalizing the legislature, and they make the argument that the more professionalized the legislature becomes, the less likely that legislators are going to effectively represent their constituents. The state often faces fiscal pressures, and we shouldn't be cutting essential services to pay legislators a salary.
KUNM: And on the flip side?
KREBS: Paying legislators is first and foremost an issue of fairness. There are not many sorts of jobs that people have, whether they're full-time or part-time, where they're not being paid. Another argument is that it will change who can think about running for a seat in the state legislature and who can serve in it, because right now, one of the main barriers to people serving in the legislature is that it's unpaid. And so, you know, there's probably a lot of people out there with really good ideas and really strong backgrounds that forego legislative service because they're like, ‘I can't afford to take off, a month or two months from my job without compensation to serve in the legislature.
KUNM: Do you believe this amendment would attract people with all kinds of skills to the legislature?
KREBS: We have a lot of people in the legislature who are retirees or who are independently wealthy or have jobs that just allow them to serve because they're more flexible, and so forth. Paying a person for their service in the legislature should broaden that pool of people who first think about running, want to get involved, and then who eventually serve, and that's probably to the benefit of the state.
KUNM: So the legislative session is either 30 or 60 days, depending on the year. Is there a common misconception of legislative life?
KREBS: It's really a full-time job for these folks. They're on call all the time, even when they're not in session. They get contacted by their constituents. People talk to them in grocery stores. I mean, they're very accessible and people know who they are. And so there's a lot of work that happens throughout the year that's simply uncompensated. Now, others might say, ‘Well they they do get a per diem when they're in legislative session or when they're doing legislative work outside of the legislative session’, like if they're on an interim committee for example, and they've got to travel to a certain part of the state to serve on that interim committee. Those are fair arguments. Other people will say, ‘Look, after a certain period of time the legislature, they have access to, retirement benefits and so forth, and those are generous.’ But I think if you want the legislature to be one that more people can think about serving in, paying legislators is the key to that.
KUNM: Do you think having longer sessions will give more justification to pay our lawmakers?
KREBS: It could create momentum to lengthen the sessions. We'll find out what happens after the vote. But you couldn't exactly make the argument, ‘Let's increase the length of the session before we pay you.’ So we'll pay you zero and ask you to work longer. I think it’s important that you get the pay issue figured out first. I think the issue of legislative professionalization or modernization is something that is gaining momentum. And if this passes, it'll be historic.
KUNM: Looking forward to the future, given our economy and our next generation of leaders, does it seem unrealistic for the state to not pay its legislators?
KREBS: Yeah, I don't think there's anybody in current generations, younger generations, that would ever think about working for nothing. Younger people have a fundamentally different attitude about work and being paid for work. And the Constitution was adopted in 1912, times have changed. The state needs younger people serving in office. The world has moved on from 1912. I think we do run a risk of losing out on talented young people who say, ‘You know what? This is not okay. I'm not going to do this for free.’
Election Day is tomorrow. Find out all our election coverage and our candidate guide at KUNM.org.
Support for this coverage comes from Thornburg Foundation.
