Solutions

If legislators are not paid a livable wage, only independently wealthy Americans will be able to serve. Congressional pay has not been adjusted for inflation since 2009, and only four states pay legislators a livable wage that they can survive on without additional income (California, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania). Many of the remaining states have “part-time” legislatures, sometimes paying as little as $0, even though representing their districts is a year-round commitment. As a result, millionaires are overrepresented in government, simply because they are the only ones who can afford to work without pay.

Running for office is the longest job interview you will ever have. Candidates are campaigning for up to two years, often as much as 18 hours a day, just for the chance to serve their communities, and they can’t sustain a full-time job on top of running a competitive race. Many have to max out credit cards, take out second mortgages, or draw down their retirement accounts to pay their bills while they run. Federal candidates can legally take salaries from their campaigns, but they are frequently attacked politically for doing what they need to do to make ends meet.

If we want everyday Americans to be able to represent us in office, legislative service needs to be treated as a job, not a volunteer opportunity. State legislators are not guaranteed health insurance or retirement benefits, which can be an insurmountable barrier unless officeholders are independently wealthy or have a spouse through whom they can get coverage. At both the federal and state levels (with the exception of Colorado), there is no paid family and medical leave, forcing legislators to make the impossible choice between caring for their family or serving their community.

Legislative buildings are not fully accessible for parents with young children. In Congress, the on-site childcare program has limited slots and a years-long waitlist, and the first-ever changing tables were installed in 2011 (and they are still not fully sufficient). At the state level, there has been no consistent movement to address the need for childcare, changing tables, or pumping rooms in legislative buildings. Only Alaska has a formal on-site childcare program for all legislators to use during legislative sessions, while states like Florida, New York, and West Virginia have only informal childcare programs. Virginia stands out for giving its lawmakers a weekly stipend for help with childcare during legislative session.

The combination of unpredictable voting schedules and in-person voting requirements restricts legislators’ ability to balance caregiving needs and legislative duties, a constraint felt disproportionately by parents with school-age children. At the federal level, there is no remote or proxy voting for members of Congress, and the rules at the state level vary from state to state and can even change from year to year, leaving parents with little guidance on what options they have when there is a family emergency. Employers across America have embraced flexible and hybrid work models; our legislatures should be the same.

Up until the mid 1990s, it was the norm for members of Congress to move their families to Washington, DC. But because it is now a political liability for parents to do this, members are faced with this decision: keep their families in their districts and say goodnight to their kids on FaceTime, or weather the political attacks for moving their family to the capital. This struggle also exists for state legislators, who often have to travel long distances to their respective capitals. Parents should not be penalized for wanting to see their children and should be encouraged to do what makes the most sense for their family.

At the federal level, legislators can use their campaign funds to pay for dependent care expenses arising from their role as public officials. This helps legislators with young children or aging parents, for example, when they have to stay late at the Capitol for a critical vote or committee hearing. However, only 18 states allow legislators to use campaign funds on broader dependent care expenses related to carrying out official duties. By reforming campaign finance rules to allow officeholders to cover dependent care expenses, we can help caregivers sustainably stay in office and serve their communities without worrying about the care of a loved one.

At the federal level, legislators can use their campaign funds to pay for legitimate security expenses incurred directly from holding public office. This helps protect not only legislators but their families as well. However, fewer than 60% of states allow state legislators to use campaign funds on security expenses when related to carrying out official duties. By reforming campaign finance rules to allow security expenses, we can provide caregivers the tools and protection they need to run and serve safely. No parent should worry about their family’s safety because they serve in office.

At both the federal and state levels, candidates must list their home address when they file to run. These home addresses then appear in public disclosure reports, which are easily accessible to the general public. In recent years, multiple legislators have been targets of political violence in their homes, including the tragic assassination of Minnesota Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman. Some states have implemented policies to prevent candidates’ personal information from being made public, or redacting home addresses on public-facing materials. This should be standard nationwide.