Rejection of per diem increase follows the ideals of the 27th Amendment

One might say that Gov. Doug Ducey’s decision Friday to veto legislation that would have granted an immediate and substantial increase in the pay that lawmakers receive was inspired by the constitutional amendment with the oddest history.

In his veto of Senate Bill 1558, the governor wrote that any changes made to the “per diem” allowances that lawmakers receive simply for showing up to work at the Capitol “should… be prospective, and apply to the next Legislature.”

That logic hews nicely to the 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is infamous for being both the last amendment added to the Constitution and for taking some 202 years to be ratified.

The amendment is simple, saying that Congress can only give itself pay raises that don’t go into effect until after the next election – in essence, ensuring that voters have a chance to weigh a lawmaker’s vote on raising his or her pay before those larger paychecks start being cut.

Its history, however, is much more complicated. The amendment was one of 12 that were proposed by James Madison in 1789, 10 of which were ratified by the states in 1791 and became the Bill of Rights.

The congressional pay amendment was approved by Congress, but only mustered ratification from six states, far short of the 11 needed for it to be adopted. (There were 14 states at the time, and amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.) Ohio later ratified it in the 19th Century, and Wyoming did the same in the early 1970s, but the amendment was stalled.

All that changed in 1982 when a University of Texas student named Gregory Watson wrote a paper on the congressional pay amendment, arguing that it could still be ratified, even though nearly 200 years had passed. He received a C on the assignment, but decided to prove his teacher wrong by actually getting the measure ratified.

He convinced the Maine Legislature to ratify it in 1983, and Colorado did the same the next year. In 1985, five more states – including Arizona – also ratified it, and the momentum continued. By 1992, it had been ratified by 38 states, the number needed to hit the three-fourths mark. The Archivist of the United States declared the amendment to be legally ratified, and, on May 20, 1992, Congress declared the ratification to be legal and the amendment to be part of the Constitution.

Jim Small
Jim Small is a native Arizonan and has covered state government, policy and politics since 2004, with a focus on investigative and in-depth policy reporting, first as a reporter for the Arizona Capitol Times, then as editor of the paper and its prestigious sister publications, the Yellow Sheet Report and Arizona Legislative Report. Under his guidance, the Capitol Times won numerous state, regional and national awards for its accountability journalism and probing investigations into state government operations.


  1. I rarely side with Gov D, but I am glad he vetoed this Per/dieum increase.. does this kill it entirely? or does it mean it will take effect after the next election.– The out of staters probably do need a per denim increase– but it should be scaled to Cost of housing and thats pretty much it.. They have to eat weather they are home or in Phx. I thought it was shameful that they were so reluctant to get educational funding up to snuff but “hey lets pay ourselves a little more and sneak it through at the last minute” (and BTW isn’t salary taxable and per deium is not) If I am right this is just another sneaky way to lower their own taxes


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here