Committee Against Legislative Pay Increases v. Cuomo, 66 N.Y.2d 26 (1985)

A state legislature may prospectively increase the salaries of its members for a future term, even if the vote occurs after the election of those members but before the commencement of their term, without violating a constitutional prohibition against increasing salaries “during, and with respect to, the term for which he shall have been elected”.

Summary

The Committee Against Legislative Pay Increases challenged the constitutionality of a law increasing the salaries of New York legislators. The law was passed after the members of the next legislative term had been elected but before their term began. The plaintiffs argued that this violated the New York Constitution, which prohibits increasing a legislator’s salary during their elected term. The New York Court of Appeals held that the law was constitutional because it applied prospectively to a future term, not to the current term of the legislators who voted on the increase. The court emphasized that the constitutional provision was intended to prevent a legislature from raising its own salary during its current term, not from setting salaries for future terms.

Facts

On November 6, 1984, New York voters elected members of the 1985-1986 Legislature. On December 6, 1984, the outgoing 1983-1984 Legislature passed a law (ch. 986) increasing the salaries of legislators for the upcoming 1985-1986 term, with an effective date of January 1, 1985. A significant number of legislators who voted for the pay raise had already been elected to the term that would receive the increased pay.

Procedural History

The Committee Against Legislative Pay Increases and a taxpayer filed suit in Supreme Court, Albany County, seeking a declaration that the salary increase was unconstitutional and an injunction against the distribution of funds. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, upholding the law. The plaintiffs then appealed directly to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether sections 18 and 19 of chapter 986 of the Laws of 1984, which increased the salaries of members of the Legislature for the 1985-1986 term, violate Article III, Section 6 of the New York Constitution, which prohibits increasing a legislator’s salary “during, and with respect to, the term for which he shall have been elected.”

Holding

No, because Article III, Section 6 of the New York Constitution does not prohibit one Legislature, subsequent to the elective designation of its successor body, from increasing the salaries of the next term’s members.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals began by noting the presumption that legislative enactments are constitutional. It distinguished its prior decision in NYPIRG v. Steingut, where it invalidated year-by-year increases in legislator’s allowances because those increases were effective during the same term in which they were appropriated. The court emphasized that in the present case, the salary increase was prospective, applying only to the next legislative term. The court stated, “the Constitution lays no constraint on the authority of the Legislature by enactment of general law to make provision prospectively for allowances to be received by the officers and members of the two houses during a succeeding legislative term or terms”.

The court reasoned that the purpose of the constitutional amendment allowing the legislature to set its own salary was to provide flexibility to adapt to changing conditions, rather than to create inflexibility. It noted that until recent years, the Legislature was typically not in session after the November election, suggesting that the drafters did not intend to bar salary changes enacted after an election but before the new term began.

The court interpreted the phrase “and with respect to” in Section 6 as qualifying the word “during,” meaning that the prohibition only prevents a legislature from raising its own salary during its own term. The court referenced the principle of statutory interpretation that “[r]elative and qualifying words or clauses in a statute are to be applied to the words or phrases immediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extending to others more remote”.

The court distinguished cases from other states with constitutional provisions that explicitly bar salary changes “after election” or require salary changes to take effect only after the next general election. Since New York’s Constitution did not contain such explicit language, the court held that the prospective salary increase was constitutional.