After hours of debate this week, the Vermont House approved legislation on Thursday that would increase legislators’ pay by 2027 — a move supporters have argued will make serving in Montpelier more accessible for people from diverse backgrounds.
Under the bill, S.39, lawmakers also would be eligible for the same health insurance coverage — with the same premium split — as state employees. The pay increases would take effect starting in 2025, which supporters have been keen to note, arguing that they want to raise the salaries of future classes of lawmakers, not their own.
The legislation cleared the House Thursday afternoon on a voice vote, after gaining preliminary approval Wednesday, 102-44. While many Democratic and Progressive lawmakers spoke in support of the bill over some two hours of floor discussion on Wednesday, it faced strong pushback from a number of Republican members.
Presenting S.39 on the floor Wednesday, Rep. Kate Nugent, D-South Burlington, said people are often “shocked” when they hear how low her salary is as a lawmaker.
Rank-and-file lawmakers are paid just shy of $812 a week during the legislative session, which typically spans January to May — roughly $15,000 a year. Lawmakers also get reimbursements for meals, lodging and miles they drive.
“Folks often ask themselves how they could possibly take care of their families, or themselves, with the time commitment required and such low compensation,” Nugent said. “If we do nothing to address this issue, we risk losing more members who still have more to give — and we’re failing to attract new leaders.”
The bill would up that figure to at least $1,000 per week in 2025, $1,100 in 2026 and $1,210 in 2027 — amounts that could still be adjusted for inflation. Starting in 2025, lawmakers also would be paid for one day of work each week that the Legislature is not in session, aimed at supporting the constituent service work they do year-round.
That extra pay would bring lawmakers to a total base salary of $29,766 annually by 2027, a little more than twice what they receive now. The Speaker of the House and Senate President Pro Tem would also see pay bumps by 2027, from about $900 a week now to $1,830 a week.
Legislative pay, and whether or not to increase it, has long been the subject of debate in Montpelier — though a historic level of turnover after last fall’s elections brought renewed energy to the conversation.
According to data shared with senators earlier this year by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the median salary for U.S. lawmakers is about $31,800 — though the amount of time that lawmakers spend on their jobs varies widely by state.
S.39 also would create a study committee of three representatives and three senators to look into a host of factors, including whether pay should be adjusted again, whether lawmakers should get any additional benefits and whether the chamber should investigate funding for other leadership positions such as caucus leaders. The committee would have to report back to the full Legislature by next Jan. 15.
The House tacked on an amendment Wednesday from Rep. Jim Harrison, R-Chittenden, asking the committee to study whether an independent entity would be better suited to set legislators’ pay and benefits.
Harrison argued that since incumbents often get reelected, a number of members were likely voting on their own pay raises. He also tried to nix the salary bumps from the bill entirely, arguing that lawmakers should await the study findings before taking action.
Rep. Anne Donahue, R-Northfield, agreed, saying, “I can’t think of a more classic case of putting the cart before the horse.”
Other members contended that the issue has already been studied, and they didn’t think the body needed to wait to take action. Rep. Mike McCarthy, D-St. Albans, noted that the salary lawmakers would be making at the end of 2027 would be slightly lower than the median weekly salary Vermonters make today: About $1,300.
Rep. Art Peterson, R-Clarendon, made a failed effort to add a measure to the bill on Wednesday that would have capped the length of the legislative session at 12 weeks. The proposal mirrored one that also failed in the Senate last month from Sen. Russ Ingalls, R-Essex/Orleans, to shorten the session to 13 weeks.
Peterson and several other members, including Rep. Ashley Bartley, R-Fairfax, said shortening the length of the session would encourage lawmakers to work more efficiently and save taxpayers money by requiring less money for salaries.
Bartley — who told her colleagues earlier this year that she lost her job at a property management company after starting her tenure in the House — contended that while she “would be lying if I said this legislation wouldn’t help my family,” she did not want to support an increase in state government spending.
The total increased cost to the state’s General Fund if the bill passes, according to estimates this week from the Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Office, would be about $1.7 million in the 2025 fiscal year, about $4 million in the 2026 fiscal year, and about $4.7 million by 2027.
Other members contended that capping the length of the legislative session would rush its work even further. “Within this body, one of the most frequent phrases that I hear is, ‘we’re rushing through this, we’re not giving it enough time,’” said Rep. Michael Mrowicki, D-Putney. “And yet I’m hearing, ‘we can actually take even less time?’”
A host of House lawmakers also described hearing from former members who were not able to serve in the Legislature while still making ends meet. “I’ve lost count of the number of legislators who have retired, or even resigned midterm, due to the low pay,” said Rep. Scott Campbell, a St. Johnsbury Democrat.
Rep. Marc Mihaly, D-Calais, recalled how he and his predecessor tried, but failed, to recruit someone younger than them to run for the Washington County seat last year — partly due to the salary, but even more so because of the lack of health insurance.
“And so, here I am,” Mihaly said — “a retired person on Medicare.”
The bill is now set to go back to the Senate for review of the House’s changes.