PHOENIX — Arizona lawmakers are going to have to continue to depend on the good will of voters — or lack thereof — to give them more money.
On an 8-5 vote Monday, the House Appropriations Committee quashed a proposal by Sen. David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, to create a system that would peg the salary of lawmakers at 60% of what the governor is paid. That would move it next year from $24,000 to $57,000.
It would have replaced what happens now when a special commission studies the issue and makes recommendations that go on the ballot.
What’s frustrating, Gowan said, is the last time voters approved a raise was in 1998. Since that time, voters have rejected a series of proposals to take it to $30,000, $35,000 or $36,000.
And the senator clearly was frustrated with what he said is a salary of $11.54 an hour if the legislature were a full-time position, especially with the state minimum wage now at $12.80.
“This is obviously a different job than washing dishes, cooking burgers,” he told colleagues, saying lawmakers are responsible for $15 billion in expenditures. “So to have dishwashers do this job would be incredible.”
Gowan said he would not be taking the public out of the picture entirely. As crafted, the salary-setting formula would have had to be approved by voters in November.
But it also came as part of a larger take-it-or-leave-it package.
For voters to approve the change in salaries, they also would have to approve allowing lawmakers to serve for 12 consecutive years in either the House or Senate. Now, legislators are “termed out” after eight years, though they are allowed to then run for the other chamber — and even back again, with no limits.
And senators would get four-year terms.
That last provision raised questions from Sen. Kelli Butler, D-Paradise Valley.
She pointed out it was time so that senators always would be chosen in “mid-term” elections, when there is not a presidential race. More to the point, Butler said Democratic turnout for mid-term elections is lower.
“So I’m wondering if that would put a little bit of a thumb on the scale to be making this change to four-year terms for the senators,” she asked.
“And I see that members are laughing at that,” Butler said. “So, that’s either absurd or on the mark.”
The death of the package also means that some proffered changes on lobbyist reporting also will not take effect. Most significantly, it would have required lobbyists to disclose money they have spent on lawmakers within five days, not quarterly as is now required.
Gowan did not explain why he did not offer that as a separate proposal but instead made it contingent on voter approval of a pay hike for lawmakers and longer terms.
By 
