Hawai‘i’s Commission on Salaries has proposed a 40% raise for lawmakers, bringing their annual salaries to $103,824 by 2027 — more than double the national average. But before lawmakers get a huge salary boost, Hawai‘i needs to decide what kind of Legislature it actually wants.

Right now, our system is neither fully professional nor truly part-time. Many legislators still hold outside jobs, often in industries directly affected by the policies they help craft. If we’re going to pay lawmakers like full-time professionals, we need to restructure the system first — not after these raises take effect.

A Special Commentary Project

Civil Beat opinion writers are closely following efforts to bring more transparency and accountability to state and local government — at the Legislature, the county level and in the media. Help us by sending ideas and anecdotes to sunshine@civilbeat.org.

Read More

A Pay Hike Without A Plan

If this debate sounds familiar, it’s because we just went through it. In 2023, the Honolulu City Council received a 64% pay hike, triggering widespread public outrage. In response, voters overwhelmingly passed a charter amendment capping future raises at 5% per year.

Now, state lawmakers face a similar dilemma. They can accept the raise and risk public anger, or they can reject it outright. But neither option addresses the real issue:

• Should Hawai‘i professionalize its Legislature by extending sessions, limiting outside employment, and strengthening ethics rules?
• Or should it retain a part-time, citizen legislature in which lawmakers balance legislative responsibilities with professional careers?

The Salary Commission assumes we’ve already settled that debate. But we haven’t.

The Public’s So-Called ‘Misperception’

Hawai‘i’s Legislature exists in an awkward middle ground. It’s not a full-time, professional body like California’s, where members earn six-figure salaries and work year-round. But it’s also not a citizen legislature like Nevada’s, where lawmakers receive small stipends and hold full-time jobs outside of government.

Instead, Hawai‘i’s system allows some legislators to treat the job as full time while others maintain lucrative outside employment, sometimes in industries directly affected by state policy.

The Salary Commission argues that the public suffers from a “misperception” that Hawai‘i’s Legislature is part-time. But if that’s true, why do so many lawmakers still hold second jobs? And if it’s not true, why are we considering full-time salaries?

This isn’t a misperception — it’s a contradiction. And before salaries rise, we need to resolve it.

This issue isn’t hypothetical. Bills introduced this year proposed studying the feasibility of transitioning to a year-round Legislature. They’re no longer alive, but a longer session could reduce the last-minute chaos of Hawai‘i’s short legislative period and lead to more thoughtful policymaking and oversight.

Full-Time Pay For Legislators With Outside Jobs?

This debate isn’t just about how much time legislators spend at work — it’s also about ethics. If lawmakers are going to be paid like full-time public servants, then their ability to earn outside income must be reconsidered.

As a 2024 Civil Beat/New York Times investigation found, at least a dozen sitting legislators — or their businesses — had received over $56 million in state contracts since 2006. The blurred line between lawmaking and private business in Hawai‘i creates an ongoing risk of conflicts of interest, insider influence and weakened public trust.

Other legislatures have recognized these conflicts:

• New York State capped outside earnings at $35,000 per year after increasing lawmakers’ salaries to the highest in the nation.
• Members of Congress, who earn $174,000, cannot make more than 15% of their salary in outside income and are banned from working in law, consulting or lobbying.

Hawai‘i has not adopted similar guardrails. If we grant lawmakers full-time pay, we need full-time accountability.

The Salary Commission Should Adjust Its Proposal

The Salary Commission operates within a narrow constitutional mandate. It can recommend pay levels, but it cannot change how the Legislature operates.

Yet its proposal treats the Hawai‘i Legislature as if it is already a fully professional body. If this raise takes effect, Hawai‘i legislators would earn nearly as much as California lawmakers, who are paid $128,215 while serving in a full-time, year-round legislature and representing nearly half a million constituents.

By contrast, Hawai‘i’s legislators meet for less than four months per year and have responsibility for comparatively small districts. Many lawmakers continue working as lawyers, consultants, or business owners — industries directly impacted by legislative decisions.

If Hawai‘i wants to professionalize its Legislature, then salary increases of this size should come after major reforms — not before.

If, instead, Hawai‘i wants to preserve a citizen legislature, then a more modest pay adjustment is appropriate.

Don’t Let Legislative Raises Derail Other Pay Increases

The Salary Commission’s recommendations don’t just affect legislators — they also impact judges and top-level administrators who are in dire need of salary adjustments.

Since lawmakers can only reject the entire recommendation, an excessive pay hike for legislators could make the entire proposal politically toxic, potentially leaving judges and administrators stuck with uncompetitive salaries that hurt recruitment and retention.

To avoid this, the Salary Commission should scale back the proposed increases for lawmakers and allow for a broader discussion about the future of Hawai‘i’s Legislature.

Let’s Decide the System Before Setting the Pay

The Salary Commission cannot change how the Legislature functions — that decision belongs to the people of Hawai‘i and their elected officials.

But because that debate hasn’t happened yet, the commission should proceed with caution.

Until Hawai‘i decides what kind of Legislature it wants, any raises should be modest, measured and aligned with the system we have — not the one the Salary Commission assumes we have, or the one we may want in the future.