Stipend rules face legal hurdle before voters can decide

A proposed rule to limit how much extra money top lawmakers can earn has hit a roadblock before voters even get a say. The change would cap stipends at a fraction of an official’s base salary of $82, 044, slicing pay for legislative leaders by half a million dollars combined. Some could lose thousands annually. Supporters call it fair payback for a system they claim favors loyal insiders over good governance. But a high court raised red flags about democracy’s limits. Justices argued the idea crosses into internal rule-making, something ballot questions shouldn’t touch. The Attorney General’s office initially OK’d the plan for the ballot last summer but now says that approval hinged on it being a new law—not a shake-up of legislative routines. The Senate asked for the court’s advice, which isn’t legally binding but carries weight.Supporters aren’t backing down. They insist the court’s view is just advice and that the Attorney General had no right to backtrack. Their push continues, arguing the public—not politicians—should vote on this. Yet the Secretary of State’s office changed course after the latest legal twist, refusing to hand out more signature sheets. Without those, the effort stalls. The dispute exposes deeper tensions: Can outsiders force change in a system designed by those in power? Critics see a pattern where leaders protect perks by any means. The group behind the proposal vows to return stronger in years ahead, framing the roadblock as a sneaky block on voter rights. Whether their 2028 plan gains traction remains unseen—but the fight over fairness in government just heated up.