Could a Washington city raise its mayor’s salary after the primary election but before the general election?

Plain-English summary

The Washington AG concluded that a city council could increase the salary attached to the next mayoral term after candidate filing closed or after a primary election, as long as the decisive general election had not occurred. It interpreted the constitutional ban on a salary increase “after his election” to refer to the election that finally chose the officeholder. A raise after the general election and before the mayor took office was prohibited.

The AG also warned that a raise after filing closed could threaten the constitutional provision's purpose, especially with only one candidate on the ballot. It considered setting the salary before filing closed the preferable policy, even though the text allowed a later pre-election change.

The opinion states: “We interpret the words ‘his election’ to apply to that election which finally determines the successful candidate.” (source).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1956. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a city raise the next mayor’s salary after filing closed?
A: The AG said yes before the decisive election, though it thought setting compensation before filing was better policy.

Q: Could the council raise it after a primary?
A: Yes, if the general election was still the contest that determined the successful candidate.

Q: Could the council raise it after the general election but before inauguration?
A: No. The opinion treated that as a prohibited post-election increase.

Background and statutory framework

A state representative asked about city council salary ordinances at three stages of a mayoral election. The AG applied the Washington constitutional limit on increasing or decreasing municipal officers' salaries after election or during their term. Its answers assumed the increase would take effect with the new term.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/salaries-offices-and-officers-city-county-state

Original opinion text

Attorney General Don Eastvold

SALARIES ‑- OFFICES AND OFFICERS -- CITY -- COUNTY -- STATE

A mayor's salary may not be increased after his election. The salary may be increased after the close of time for filing or the primary election.

January 13, 1956

Honorable Malcolm McBeath
State Representative, 42nd District
2622 G Street
Bellingham, Washington Cite as: AGO 55-57 No. 184

Dear Sir:

You have requested our opinion relative to increase of the salary of a mayor by ordinance of the city council as now permitted by statute. Your specific questions were as follows:

(1) Can the mayor's salary be increased after filings have closed?

(2) Can the mayor's salary be increased after the primary election?

(3) Can the mayor's salary be increased after the general election in March and before taking office in June?

In our opinion, the answers are: (1) "Yes", (2) "Yes", and (3) "No".

ANALYSIS

Section 8 of Article XI of the Washington state constitution, as relates to your questions, provides:

" * * The salary of any county, city, town, or municipal officers shall not be increased or [[Orig. Op. Page 2]] diminished after his election or during his term of office, * * " (Emphasis supplied)

The 23rd Amendment affirms the foregoing prohibition of the constitution as applied to officials of combined city and county municipal corporations.

We interpret the words "his election" to apply to that election which finally determines the successful candidate. The salary may be increased prior to that event. As "his election" would customarily occur at the general election, the salary may be increased prior to that date. Therefore, your first and second questions are answered in the affirmative.

We take this opportunity, however, to comment on what we believe to be proper policy with respect to the increase of decrease of salaries of such officials. The Washington supreme court, discussing the constitutional provisions in State ex rel. Davis v. Clausen, 47 Wash. 372, said:

"This wise provision was no doubt intended to prevent pernicious activity on the part of office holders of the state being brought to bear upon the members of the legislature‑-a wise provision which must not be construed out of existence or evaded by legislative enactment."

The following language appears in State ex rel. Port of Seattle v. Wardall, 107 Wash. 606:

"Other courts have said that such provisions also have an additional purpose, namely, to prevent the salary-fixing body from rewarding their friends and punishing their enemies, which they were sometimes wont to do, by increasing the salaries of those in favor and decreasing the salaries of those whose actions did not meet with the approval of that body."

The latter quotation suggests the dangers inherent in changing the salary at any time after the time for filing has expired. We can foresee the possible situation where the name of a single candidate would appear on the ballot either in the primary or general election. In such a situation, we feel that the spirit, if not the letter, of the constitution would be in serious jeopardy.

[[Orig. Op. Page 3]]

In Pulcifer v. Alameda County, 29 Cal. (2d) 258, 175 P. (2d) 1, it was said, at page 263:

"The Supreme Court of Wisconsin, in treating as mandatory a statute containing a time limitation on the power of county officers to fix salaries, stated: 'It is quite clear that the statute contemplates that the power shall be exercised at a period remote from the time when such officers were to be chosen, in order to prevent the influence of partisan bias or personal feeling on the part of members of the board in fixing the salary. And, furthermore, it was probably deemed desirable that candidates for office should know precisely what compensation was attached to the office.' (Hull v. Winnebago Co., 54 Wis. 291, [11 N.W. 486, 487]; see, alsoFeavel v. City of Appleton, 234 Wis. 483, [291 N.W. 830, 833], and cases cited.)" (Emphasis supplied.)

To obtain the best-qualified candidates, it would seem most desirable to have the compensation set prior to the close of the time for filing.

In answer to your third question, the constitution clearly prohibits an increase after the candidate's election and before taking office in June.

Our remarks presume that any increase in salary would be effective commencing with the new term of office.

We hope the foregoing will prove helpful to you.

Very truly yours,

DON EASTVOLD
Attorney General

H. E. WIELAND
Assistant Attorney General