Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Retirement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bills to raise judicial retirement contributions, shorten vesting and add temporary service credit boost
Summary
Two companion bills would raise judges' contribution rates, equalize employer contribution, shorten vesting from eight to five years, and give an increased service‑credit rate for the first 10 years to improve recruitment and the pension fund's solvency.
Senate Bill 150 would change the Judges' Retirement Act for Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, district court judges and metropolitan court judges; Senator Stefanik's presented the proposal and the Administrative Office of the Courts and PERA offered technical details.
Under the proposal, judges' employee contributions would rise from 10.5% of salary to 14.74%, and the employer (state) contribution would be increased to 19.24%. Vesting would be reduced from eight years to five years to align judges with other state plans, and the bill would provide higher service credit—4% for the first ten years on the bench—then lower rates thereafter. The administrative presentation said the Judicial Retirement Fund is roughly 56% funded today and that the proposal would move the fund toward full funding over several decades.
The nut graf: Sponsors framed the changes as steps to improve the fund’s long‑term solvency while making judicial office more attractive to more senior attorneys who might otherwise decline a judicial appointment late in their careers. Sponsor testimony stressed the package is intended to be budget neutral and to avoid requiring an appropriation.
Senators asked about comparability with educator and other public retirement plans. PERA staff said increased contributions add to plan assets; the PERA board had not yet taken a formal position. A companion bill, Senate Bill 151, would apply similar adjustments to magistrate judges but omits the temporary 4% service‑credit boost because magistrates may be nonlawyers and can be appointed at younger ages in some jurisdictions.
Ending: The committee approved due‑pass motions for both bills. Members said they supported measures that improve recruitment and retention of experienced legal practitioners and strengthen the funds, while some speakers cautioned about targets for a 100% funding ratio and competing fiscal priorities.
