In Columbia, South Carolina, the state Supreme Court convened on Wednesday to deliberate over a contentious issue: a significant pay raise for state legislators. This debate centers on a specific monthly stipend known as “in-district compensation.”

The controversy arises from a budget proviso passed during this year’s legislative session, which doubled the monthly payment from $1,000 to $2,500. This increase was defended by Ken Moffitt, representing Senate President Thomas Alexander, who argued that it responds to the rising costs faced by lawmakers when they return to their districts. “These guys go home, and they experience an increase in expenses in the same way that we all have. Prices have risen, and the proviso reflects that,” Moffitt stated.

However, the pay hike is under fire from Senator Wes Climer, a Republican from York, and a concerned South Carolina resident. They have filed a lawsuit claiming the increase contravenes the state constitution, which prohibits lawmakers from granting themselves pay raises during their current term.

“These guys go home, and they experience an increase in expenses in the same way that we all have. Prices have risen, and the proviso reflects that.”

The raise is being challenged by Senator Wes Climer (R–York) and a South Carolina resident, who filed a lawsuit arguing the increase violates the state constitution’s ban on lawmakers granting themselves pay raises during their own term.

Attorney Phillip Barber, representing Climer and another plaintiff, said this rule has existed for centuries:

“The clear intent since the 18th century was that you cannot increase the payment for services rendered without giving the people a chance to have an election beforehand. You can increase for a future legislature, not for yourself.”

A key part of the legal debate stems from a 1988 terminology change when what was once called a “legislative expense allowance” was renamed “in-district compensation.” Attorneys argue that wording determines whether the payment is a reimbursement for expenses, which could be constitutional, or additional salary, which would not be.

Barber said, “If the proviso specifically directed that the money be used to reimburse official expenses… that would be constitutional…It just says compensation. It doesn’t even use the word expenses.”

Moffitt countered that the intent is still reimbursement.

“Compensation essentially means to reimburse…It is an expense.”

Because the budget line for the increase was tied to the existing stipend, lawmakers have not received their $1,000 monthly in-district compensation while the case is pending. Payments at both the old and new rates are suspended until the court issues a ruling.

Representative Hamilton Grant (D – Richland) said the pause is hurting lawmakers who already pay many expenses out of pocket.

“I want to be clear that this is not something that we’re looking to get rich…There are demands, there are places you need to be, there are things that you need to do for your constituents…and we’re paying out of pocket for those expenses,” said Grant.

The South Carolina Supreme Court has not said when it will issue its decision. Until then, the issue remains in limbo.