(Very) Early Origins

The text of the 27th Amendment reads: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”
The issue of lawmakers’ salaries was quite contentious during the Constitutional Convention. The framers held competing visions about the extent to which congressmen should be paid, if at all. One of the most vocal opponents to congressional pay altogether was Benjamin Franklin.

Franklin argued that public servants should work without pay, believing that they should be virtuous in their commitment to governmental service. Ultimately, his view was on the more extreme end and did not make its way into the draft constitution. While representation in the early iterations of Congress was still quite limited to white landowning men, the provision for a salary at least opened the opportunity to more than the wealthy.
While the inclusion of compensation was eventually agreed upon, many framers and the general public still worried that people would greedily enter public office to enrich themselves. James Madison foresaw the complication of allowing Congress to adjust its own salary without some guidelines. He also worried that having the President control congressional salaries could lead to bitter politicking and corruption.

In 1789, Madison and other framers submitted 12 amendments to the U.S. Constitution to the first Congress. The first 10 , known as the Bill of Rights, were fully ratified in 1791. The congressional pay provision, however, was only ratified at the time by six states. Because there was no time limit on ratification, what eventually became the 27th Amendment lay dormant for nearly two centuries.

An Unexpected Voice for Change

Gregory Watson was a sophomore studying political science at the University of Texas at Austin in 1982. In a class on constitutional law, students were asked to write about constitutional change and process. Watson’s paper argued that since time limits on ratification were not enumerated anywhere in the Constitution, the congressional pay provision was still “live” and thus could be ratified and implemented.
While Watson received a grade of C for his argument, he did not let that stop his momentum. He initiated a letter-writing campaign to various state legislatures in the hopes of closing the loop on ratification. Starting with Maine and Colorado, states began ratifying the amendment. Watson’s movement gained quite a bit of traction and media attention nationwide.
By 1992, three-quarters of the states reached the necessary consensus as laid out in Article V of the Constitution to legitimize the 27th Amendment. For the first time in history, the Archivist of the United States certified the amendment.

Concerns were raised about the legality of the ratification process after its passage, since the first six states signed on in the 18th century. Some scholars interpret the process of ratification laid out in Article V as needing to be a simultaneous event, with state-by-state ratification taking place within a short timespan. This is in sharp contrast to the elongated timeline for the 27th Amendment. The Speaker of the House at the time even proposed litigating its legitimacy until it was clear that the provision had gained widespread popularity among the general public.
The amendment process is an important cornerstone of checks and balances inherent to our democratic system. During every two-year term in the House of Representatives, members of Congress typically propose about 200 amendments, although few ever make it out of committees. Despite its unusual path to ratification, the 27th amendment’s saga is the realization of the framers’ wishes for a participatory and engaged citizenry.