South Carolina Legislators Face Pay Freeze Amid Legal Dispute

South Carolina lawmakers have not received their salaries for several months due to a lawsuit filed by state Senator Wes Climer. The lawsuit challenges a proposed pay raise for legislators, marking the first increase in 30 years. The dispute centers around “in-district compensation,” which, according to lawmakers, is intended for legislative duties but has few restrictions on its usage.

The state budget, which was approved by both chambers, aimed to increase this compensation from $1,000 a month to $2,500 for all 46 senators and 124 House members starting from July 1. Climer argued that the South Carolina constitution prohibits legislators from raising their own pay immediately, insisting that any adjustments must take effect only after the next election.

In a recent ruling, the South Carolina Supreme Court halted not only the proposed increase but also the existing $1,000 monthly compensation. This unexpected decision has left legislators without any in-district pay, causing some to rely on personal finances for essential expenses.

Impact on Legislative Duties

Many lawmakers, including Democratic State Representative Hamilton Grant, have expressed frustration over the situation. Grant stated that the inability to fund town halls and other public engagements means that legislators are forced to use their own resources. He remarked, “As lawmakers, we should not be coming out of pocket for expenses to take care of our constituents.”

With no new payments until the court resolves the case or until the 2026 session begins in January, part-time legislators will receive a lump sum of $10,400 to cover their compensation of $260 per day. This situation poses significant challenges, particularly for those like Grant, who are balancing legislative duties with other professional commitments.

While Climer acknowledges the difficulties faced by his colleagues, he maintains that adherence to the law is paramount. He emphasized, “For 250 years, it has mostly been frowned upon, if not illegal, for legislators to immediately raise their own pay.” Climer’s stance is supported by his attorney, Dick Harpootlian, a former Democratic senator known for his advocacy against perceived corruption in the legislature.

Legislative Compensation in Context

The proposed raise followed a brief discussion led by Republican Senator Shane Martin, who argued that inflation necessitated the increase. Despite the swift passage of the budget line, growing public scrutiny soon emerged. In fact, before the Supreme Court intervened, around 40 legislators, all Republicans, had declined the pay raise.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, South Carolina’s compensation for lawmakers is among the lowest in the United States. While the combined annual salary and in-district compensation of $22,400 is higher than states like New Hampshire, which offers $100 plus mileage, it remains significantly lower than the salaries in states such as California and New York, where legislators earn over $100,000 annually.

The ongoing legal proceedings have sparked a debate about the implications of low legislative pay on the diversity and effectiveness of lawmakers. Grant pointed out that the current compensation structure disproportionately favors individuals already in stable financial positions, often resulting in a legislature comprised mainly of lawyers and retirees.

He believes that increasing compensation could attract a wider range of candidates, stating, “If compensation is raised, South Carolina will get better candidates running for office because they can afford to bring their everyday South Carolina experience and issues to the table.”

As both parties finalize their legal arguments, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case on October 22, 2023. The outcome will have significant implications for the future of legislative compensation in South Carolina, as well as for the functioning of the General Assembly itself.

In conclusion, the legal battle reflects deeper issues regarding public service, financial viability, and the representation of everyday citizens in state governance. Climer has maintained that “public service is a sacrifice,” underscoring the need for lawmakers to prioritize their commitment to their constituents over personal financial gain.