Considering the historic battles to kill legislative salary raises — often won by grass-roots antitax activists — that would be a major coup.

But legislative leaders, who bristle over salaries they consider paltry, might just be able to pull it off.

At first blush, the sudden attempt by Beacon Hill leaders to pass huge pay hikes for themselves appears to face serious hurdles: a potential gubernatorial veto, a conflict of interest prohibition, and the possibility that opponents will ask voters to repeal it in next year’s state election.

Senate President Stanley C. Rosenberg and House Speaker Robert DeLeo, who shook the State House with their unexpected announcement Tuesday, are seeking increases for themselves of more than 70 percent, from $102,279 to as much as $175,000.


Raises for other leadership posts and for constitutional officers, including the governor, are also part of the package, first recommended by a special commission in late 2014. The total package would cost close to $1 million a year.

What may help lawmakers most: The push for pay increases comes amid a far different political dynamic than in past years, when raises were politically explosive. With the public focused on the controversial transition of power in Washington, Beacon Hill leaders may have an easier time pushing through such legislation.

Indeed, Steve Aylward, a conservative Republican activist, said he did not hear any initial ruckus among his colleagues when DeLeo and Rosenberg announced their intention to move on the pay hikes.

“I don’t feel a lot of momentum and concern among the grass roots,’’ said Aylward, who led the successful 2014 effort to repeal a legislative plan to tie automatic gas tax increases to the rate of inflation. “I think there are bigger fish to fry than pay raises.”

Still, Geoffrey Diehl, a Republican from Whitman who has been a strong anti-Beacon Hill voice, discounted notions that opponents would not take action.


“When the time is right and we get a full briefing about the pay issue, myself and other fiscal conservatives will make more of an issue of it,’’ said Diehl. He also noted the potential pay raises come at a time when new tax proposals are on the table, creating fertile ground for a grass-roots movement.

The Democratic leadership’s biggest hurdle may be getting a two-thirds majority in the Senate and House to override a possible veto. Governor Charlie Baker, a Republican, has so far not rejected the pay package, but the best informed sources are convinced he will not sign the pay bill.

For a governor expected to seek reelection next year, the politics are tricky. Baker has developed a close working relationship with the moderate DeLeo and, to some degree, with the liberal Rosenberg. Still, he gets high marks from voters for being a Republican governor who keeps a check on the heavily Democratic Legislature.

And Baker, who wants to avoid a primary election challenge in 2018, must also keep an eye on his right flank — particularly the Tea Party wing of the state GOP. Next week, those forces are challenging the reelection of his hand-picked party chair, Kirsten Hughes, at a state committee meeting. A loss would be a major political setback for the governor.

As for ethical barriers, Beacon Hill political leaders apparently believe they have that figured out. Public officials cannot legally vote for legislation that will financially benefit them, which would prohibit lawmakers from taking the raises created from a stand-alone pay hike bill during the current two-year session. But if the measure is part of “general legislation,” such as a state budget bill, they can collect the pay increases immediately, simply filing a disclosure with the State Ethics Commission. And any effort to repeal the raises by putting the issue on the 2018 ballot would be thwarted if they were attached to a budget bill, which is immune to repeal petitions.


If lawmakers attempted to raise their pay via a stand-alone bill, they would want to make sure — despite the ridicule it would get — that the legislation contained an “emergency preamble” requiring the new law to go into effect immediately rather than after a 90-day waiting period. That preamble also would prevent the normal suspension of the law until the issue was decided on the 2018 ballot. (State law defines such an emergency as “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or convenience.”)

The pay issue is of particular interest for veteran legislators like DeLeo, who at 66 is beginning his ninth year as House speaker. His pension would be greatly enhanced by a big pay hike because it is based on the top three earning-years.

Such salary increases have a long, fraught history on Beacon Hill. In 1988, a $10,922 pay hike that lawmakers voted for themselves was roundly rejected at the polls by voters, after a vigorous campaign by Citizens for Limited Taxation.


In 1994, one of the most controversial legislative pay hikes was the work of a GOP governor, William F. Weld, who cut a late-night deal with a lame-duck legislature to give lawmakers a $15,000-a-year raise. In turn, they approved his plan for a cut in the state capital gains tax.

Weld, House Speaker Charles Flaherty, and Senate President William M. Bulger took off early the next day for a trade mission to Ireland.

But not before Weld, a former federal prosecutor who made his reputation on political corruption cases, brushed aside charges that a corrupt bargain had taken place.

“Good will does beget good will,’’ he told reporters as he headed to the airport.

Frank Phillips can be reached at frank.phillips@globe.com.