Colorado Lawmaker Pay Raise Debate Gets Real

Colorado Politics’ Marianne Goodland reports that Colorado lawmakers are scheduled to receive automatic pay increases in 2027, even as the state faces a $1.5 billion budget shortfall and cuts to Medicaid provider reimbursements and services for families caring for relatives with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The raise stems from a 2024 law change that made salary adjustments automatic, meaning lawmakers no longer have to take a stand-alone public vote on their own pay.

The article notes that legislators earned $47,561 at the start of the 2025 session. Under the scheduled increase, House members will make about $48,893 in 2027, while senators will make about $49,701, not including mileage reimbursement and per diem. Politically, yes, the timing looks about as graceful as a cow on roller skates. But the underlying question is real: who can actually afford to serve?

The Bullet Point Brief

The pay raise will hit while the state is cutting elsewhere, including Medicaid reimbursements and support for families caring for loved ones with disabilities. That is the kind of headline that makes every political consultant reach for antacids.
The raise is automatic because of a 2024 law, so lawmakers do not have to vote directly on their own increase. Convenient? Yes. Transparent? About as transparent as gravy.
A pay commission said Colorado lawmakers were paid about 6.38% below the median and recommended bumping legislative pay to $50,802. That is not exactly yacht money, unless the yacht is inflatable and comes from Walmart.
Rep. Bob Marshall tried to raise the issue publicly, arguing lawmakers should share the pain with constituents. Fair point. Public service should never look like public privilege.
But the commission also said legislative pay should allow a broad range of Coloradans to pursue office without “undue economic hardship.” Also fair. Because right now, the Legislature is naturally easier for retirees, independently wealthy people, business owners with flexibility, young idealists, and people connected to advocacy-world employment.

My Bottom Line

This sounds politically tone deaf, because it is politically tone deaf. When Medicaid providers are getting cut and families are staring at real losses, lawmakers getting an automatic raise is a bad look. There is no way to spin that into a Norman Rockwell painting.

But it is also a conversation worth having. The Colorado General Assembly meets for the first five months of the year. Then come interim committees, constituent service, community meetings, bill work, local events, agency conversations, and all the “other duties as assigned” that come with public office. People call it part-time. It is not. It is full-time work with part-time pay and full-time headaches.

And here is the practical problem: how many employers are going to say, “Sure, take off January through May, then disappear randomly throughout the rest of the year when your public service gig needs you”? Not many. That means the pool of people who can serve becomes narrow by default. An independent business owner who can step away. A retiree. Someone young, single, idealistic, and willing to eat ramen for democracy. Or someone employed by a 501(c)(3) or advocacy organization, which raises its own questions about influence and associations.

Yes, it is called public service for a reason. Nobody should run for the Legislature expecting to get rich. But if the pay is too low, then we should not be shocked when the institution attracts only certain kinds of people and excludes a whole lot of regular working Coloradans who simply cannot make the math work.

So, on the face, a pay raise looks bad. In this budget environment, it looks especially bad. But if we want to attract a broader spectrum of Coloradans to the General Assembly, the idea is not crazy. The bottom line is this: with the Legislature, Colorado is getting what it pays for. And some days, that explains a whole lot.

Source: Colorado Politics