Sentinel Opinion: There are good reasons to pay lawmakers more, but the current proposal won't address them

The current legislator pay has been etched in the constitution since 1889. That unusually low rate, together with the House’s unusually large, 400-member size, have helped create a citizen-legislature mystique that’s as much a part of the Granite State’s identity as the Old Man of the Mountain once was and the first-in-the-nation presidential primary is (at least for now). The citizen legislature tag is in theory warranted, for at $100 per year (plus mileage), legislators are essentially uncompensated for their public service and can’t be accused of being professional politicians.

Whether our representatives and senators in Concord actually reflect the average citizenry is another matter, and the almost near-zero compensation often gets blamed for a General Court membership that skews heavily toward retirees, those who don’t need a job or those whose employers — in some cases out of self-interest — are willing to underwrite the time away from work that’s expected of a legislator. As Stapleton noted to The Sentinel, “People have to give up work, they have to give up time, resources and talents in order to do this job.” This has led to calls over the years to raise constitutionally-mandated pay to attract a more representative spectrum of members.

Now Stapleton proposes a 25-fold increase, both in the annual compensation and to raise the current $3 per diem compensation for special session days to $75. His amendment would also allow for periodic cost-of-living adjustments. On a percentage basis, the raise is extreme, but it wouldn’t even keep up with inflation since 1889, when $100 had the purchasing power of about $3,240 today.

Stapleton seems as much motivated by addressing absenteeism as in widening the legislator pool. There are at times, he says, when up to 50 representatives are absent, and “[i]f there were a little better compensation, maybe they would have the sense of obligation to at least attend and cast the votes like they are expected to do.”

Well-intentioned as that may be, $2,500 a year seems insufficient annual compensation to move the needle, either toward meaningfully discouraging absenteeism or toward the far more desirable goal of broadening the spectrum of citizens who can afford to serve and would better reflect the state’s populace. To put the proposal in a national context, the average compensation of legislators in states with part-time legislatures was $13,111 in 2022, the National Conference of State Legislatures has reported. And the proposed amendment would carry an annual cost of over $1 million just to raise the annual compensation rate, a steep price to expect a supermajority of voters to approve simply for the hope of reducing absenteeism.

Make no mistake: New Hampshire should find a way to encourage General Court membership that more closely reflects the life experiences and demographic, economic, racial and other backgrounds of the state’s residents and make its legislature truly a citizen legislature. To achieve that and yet retain the Granite State’s citizen-legislature mystique will require a far bolder step in making service in Concord affordable.