The fate of a controversial $18,000 annual pay raise state lawmakers voted to give themselves in this year’s budget appears to hinge on how a majority of the five justices on the state Supreme Court interpret the term “per diem.”
That was the takeaway following oral arguments this week in a case brought by York County Republican Sen. Wes Climer. He argues that the $1,500 increase in monthly “in-district compensation” payments violated the state constitution’s ban on legislative pay raises without an election between enactment of the increase and the time it takes effect.
Prior to the new budget, that compensation was set at $1,000 per month — though lawmakers haven’t seen even those payments since the justices froze legislators’ pay while Climer’s case works its way through the system. If upheld, lawmakers’ total annual compensation would climb from $22,400 to $40,400 — though their $10,400 base salary would remain unchanged.
The question the court will decide is whether the phrase “per diem” — the term the 1895 South Carolina constitution uses to describe lawmakers’ pay, which at the time was calculated on a daily basis — covers the in-district compensation checks, which are ostensibly intended to reimburse lawmakers for out-of-pocket costs that inevitably accrue back home.
Lawyers for the legislature argue that in this context, “per diem” should be understood to refer only to the unchanged base pay, which attorneys for Climer say that interpretation would open the door to backdoor pay raises that violate the clear intent of the constitution.
The court is expected to decide the issue before lawmakers return in January.
Help keep the City Paper free.
No paywalls.
No subscription cost.
Free delivery at 800 locations.
Help support independent journalism by donating today.