Stay Curious. Stay Connected.
MailNewsletters♡Donate Now
Sign up
*Password must be at least 8 characters and contain one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, one number and one symbol.
Already have an account?
By submitting, you consent that you are at least 18 years of age and to receive information about MPR's or APMG entities' programs and offerings. The personally identifying information you provide will not be sold, shared, or used for purposes other than to communicate with you about MPR, APMG entities, and its sponsors. You may opt-out at any time clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of any email communication. View our Privacy Policy.
Sign in to your profile
Forgot Password?
New to MPR News?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Reset Password

Enter the username on file and we'll send you a code to reset your password.

Still require assistance or not sure what your User Name is?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Email Verification

A verification code has been emailed to

Still awaiting the code?
Capitol View®
Tom Scheck

Proposal: Should constitutional amendment be dubbed “Stop lawmakers from raising their own pay”?

Go Deeper.

Create an account or log in to save stories.

Like this?

Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.

Last year, the Minnesota Legislature placed a constitutional amendment on the 2016 November ballot that asks voters whether a bipartisan citizen commission should be created to approve salary and benefits for state lawmakers.

Now, one of the amendment backers wants to modify the title of the amendment on the ballot as “Stop Lawmakers from Raising Their Own Pay.”

Sen. Kent Eken, DFL-Twin Valley, says lawmakers didn’t have enough time to properly title the proposed amendment last session so he’s proposing legislation this year to do just that. He said it the title of the ballot question will inform the public that it would remove a conflict of interest for lawmakers.

“People see the glaring conflict of interest that exists there, we are not objective in terms of what our pay should be,” Eken said. “The people are also upset that we shouldn’t be down here debating and arguing what our pay should be.”

Eken may be implementing some reverse psychology through his title suggestion. Most people have considered the constitutional amendment as a “pay raise amendment.”

Legislators have been in a quandary over how to handle their own pay. They haven't raised their salary since 1999. An independent commission has proposed to raise the salary for state lawmakers but legislators have been reluctant to take that step for fear of angering voters. Legislators currently earn $31,500 a year, plus daily expense payments that almost double the salary.

Critics of the proposed amendment said it was legislative overreach and dubbed it as “legislative greed.”

The constitution will be changed if a majority of those voting approve the amendment.