The meaning of two little words—"per diem"—has sent shockwaves through South Carolina’s Statehouse, leaving lawmakers without a key portion of their pay and sparking a constitutional debate that could transform how legislators are compensated for years to come. On October 22, 2025, the South Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging a $1,500-per-month pay raise for the state’s 46 senators and 124 House members, a raise that was set to begin on July 1 but has since been frozen by the court. At stake is not only the pay bump but also the very definition of what counts as salary, reimbursement, or compensation for lawmakers in the Palmetto State.
The controversy began when the General Assembly tucked the pay increase into the 2025 state budget during a late-night Senate debate. The raise, the first in more than three decades, would have boosted the so-called “in-district compensation” from $1,000 to $2,500 per month. Legislators and their supporters argued the increase was overdue, citing decades of inflation and rising expenses for public service. According to The State, Republican Sen. Shane Martin, who introduced the measure, spent less than a minute on the Senate floor explaining that the old amount was no longer sufficient in a world of higher costs.
But not everyone was convinced. Forty-four legislators, all Republicans, opted out of the raise. Sen. Wes Climer of Rock Hill took his opposition a step further, filing a lawsuit that paused all payments of the in-district compensation. As a result, lawmakers effectively took a $1,000 monthly pay cut starting July 1, 2025, with the possibility of collecting backpay only if the court ultimately rules in their favor. If the justices decide against them, legislators will need to pass a new law just to restore their regular allowance, according to the South Carolina Daily Gazette.
As the legal wrangling unfolded, the Supreme Court justices zeroed in on a deceptively simple question: What did the drafters of the state constitution mean when they wrote “per diem”? The answer could determine whether lawmakers have the power to raise their own pay mid-term or must wait until after the next general election. The 1868 state constitution used the word “compensation,” but the 1895 version—the one still in effect—switched to “per diem,” which means “per day.” Justice George James pressed attorneys on why that change was made, suggesting it might have been intended to restrict salary increases to a literal daily rate.
Attorneys for the House and Senate argued that the $10,400 annual salary lawmakers receive for the five-month official session is the only form of compensation the constitution prohibits them from raising for themselves. Kenneth Moffitt, representing the Senate, stated, “The per diem, the salary, will be the same next session as it was this past session. It hasn’t changed.” But attorneys for Climer and Rock Hill resident Carol Herring, who joined the suit, countered that the intent was always to prevent lawmakers from awarding themselves more money outside of election years, regardless of how the payments are structured. “Splitting up payments weekly or monthly shouldn’t give legislators 130 years later free reign to award themselves whatever they want,” argued attorney Phillip Barber.
The debate was further muddied by a 1988 change in terminology. For decades, lawmakers’ extra pay was called a “legislative expense allowance,” clearly indicating it was meant to reimburse costs. But nearly 40 years ago, the label was switched to “in-district compensation.” Chief Justice John Kittredge noted, “Somehow, we’re supposed to engraft and impute and infer that this is limited to expenses, and there’s not a hint of it in the language.” The lack of documentation required for these payments—lawmakers don’t have to submit receipts or explain how the money is spent—strengthened the argument that the funds are more like salary than reimbursement.
“Because it doesn’t have to be used for expenses, you can use it for your mortgage payment, you can use it for your car payment, you can use it for anything you want,” Justice James observed. “So, it is a workaround to increase compensation.” Former state Sen. Dick Harpootlian, representing the plaintiffs, was blunt: “When they say compensation, they mean compensation.”
As the court deliberates, the consequences are already being felt. With payments halted, legislators have had to dip into their own pockets to cover costs for town halls, constituent services, and basic equipment. Some lawmakers, according to the Associated Press, have expressed frustration at having to use their private salaries to serve the public. The Supreme Court, which typically takes months to issue a decision, left open the possibility that legislators may not receive any more money for their General Assembly duties until the 2026 session starts in January.
The pay raise itself was tied into the recurring budget item that also covers the regular $1,000 monthly payment. By halting the entire budget line, the court’s decision surprised lawmakers and left them without even their traditional allowance. The justices suggested that the legislature could have avoided this outcome by calling the fund an expense fund rather than compensation, delaying the raise until after the 2026 election, or separating the raise from existing payments in the budget. But, as the South Carolina Daily Gazette reported, none of these steps were taken.
Comparisons with other states reveal just how low South Carolina’s legislative pay is. Lawmakers receive $10,400 annually for about five months of session—roughly $260 per day. Combined with in-district compensation, the total is $22,400, well below states like Alabama and Tennessee, and a fraction of what full-time legislators earn in California and New York. At the same time, it’s substantially more than New Hampshire’s $100-a-year plus mileage, showing the wide gulf in how states approach legislative pay, as noted by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Beyond the technicalities of compensation, the case raised a thorny legal question: Can a sitting legislator sue the body to which he belongs? Justice Letitia Verdin asked if allowing such lawsuits would open the door for any legislator on the losing end of a vote to challenge the legislature in court. Barber responded that Climer was suing in his capacity as a private citizen—a distinction the justices seemed willing to accept, especially since Herring, a retired teacher, was also a party to the suit.
Climer himself acknowledged the hardships his colleagues face but stood firm on principle. “It’s supposed to be a sacrificial act of public service,” he said after the arguments, reflecting a long-standing wariness in American politics about politicians voting themselves higher pay.
If the court rules against the raise, both the pay bump and the regular allowance will vanish for the 2025-2026 fiscal year. Lawmakers could pass a new law in January 2026 to restore the $1,000 monthly payment, but any new raise would have to wait until after the 2026 elections to take effect—meaning the soonest legislators could see higher compensation would be January 2027.
For now, the fate of legislative pay in South Carolina hangs on the meaning of a phrase written more than a century ago. As the justices weigh history, intent, and the realities of public service, lawmakers and citizens alike are left to wonder what price—literal and figurative—should be set for democracy in action.
