Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Minimum Wage Constitutional Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee votes 'do not pass' on proposal to enshrine minimum wage in state constitution
Summary
The committee rejected HCR 3,032, a proposed constitutional amendment that would establish a state minimum wage and index it to inflation, after members expressed concern about locking wage policy into the constitution and the measure’s long-term effectiveness.
Get email alerts on the Minimum Wage Constitutional Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The House Industry, Business and Labor Committee voted to recommend a do-not-pass on HCR 3,032, a proposed constitutional amendment that would set a state minimum wage (and index future increases to the consumer price index). Committee members voiced concerns that embedding wage levels in the state constitution would make adjustments inflexible and could have unintended consequences for small employers and seasonal work.
Representative Koppelman said the proposal was unlikely to increase labor-force participation and warned that constitutionalizing a wage level would be a blunt tool. “I don’t know who that’s going to motivate to work that’s not working now,” Koppelman said during debate. Representative Casper noted many states have moved to index or separately set minimum wages and that the national picture has changed; a committee member observed that private-market wages have risen in many places without constitutional change.
Supporters who filed testimony argued the measure would protect low-wage workers and establish a predictable, inflation-adjusted wage floor. Opponents and several committee members countered that making wage policy part of the constitution would limit lawmakers’ ability to tailor policy and that a statutory route would allow more responsive policymaking.
A motion for a do-not-pass recommendation was moved and seconded in committee; the roll-call vote approved the do-not-pass recommendation. The committee’s action prevents the measure from advancing from this committee, though sponsors or petitioners could pursue other avenues under the state’s constitutional amendment process.
Committee members said they remain sympathetic to concerns about low wages but prefer statutory or programmatic approaches rather than a constitutional amendment to set a wage floor.
