Committee advances changes to judicial retirement; magistrate bill moves forward for further consideration

The House Judiciary Committee advanced legislation to change judicial retirement benefits and considered a companion bill to change magistrate retirement provisions.

Justice Shannon Bacon and Representative sponsors told the committee the revisions are aimed at recruiting and retaining judges and addressing long‑term solvency of the Judicial Retirement Act. For non‑magistrate judges the bill (HB182) would reduce the vesting period from eight years to five, increase early service credit from 3.25% to 4.0% per year for the next 10 years (then 3.5% thereafter), raise the maximum pension from 85% to 100%, and increase member and employer contribution rates (member contribution from 10.5% to 14.74% of pay; employer contribution from 15% to 19.24% of pay). Justice Bacon said the judiciary is not asking the Legislature for direct money for the change and that the adjustments would put the retirement plan “on a true path to solvency.” She described the plan’s current funded level at about 58% and said the bill would shorten an effectively infinite amortization period to roughly 59 years.

Greg Trujillo of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) told the committee that PERA’s preliminary analysis is positive and that the changes “do put the this fund in a much better financial position.” Committee members asked clarifying questions about retention, why magistrate plans are handled separately and how the changes affect judges who run for retention or election. Justice Bacon explained the magistrate retirement plan and Judicial Retirement Act are distinct statutes with different historical features — for example, magistrates historically could enter at much younger ages, and many magistrates draw pensions from other state service.

House Bill 183, the companion measure for magistrate retirement, contains largely parallel changes; the main difference is that the magistrate service‑credit accrual remains at 3.0% a year in the draft testimony because magistrates historically enter service at younger ages. Justice Bacon noted a pending bill that would change the minimum age for magistrates from 18 to 28 and said that change is supported by magistrates themselves.

In committee action, a motion to give HB182 a due‑pass recommendation was made and carried; the chair announced there were 10 yeses for HB182, giving it a due‑pass recommendation. A motion to give HB183 a due‑pass recommendation was made by Representative Romero and seconded by Representative Hall; the transcript records the motion and the beginning of a roll call but does not include the final roll result in the provided record.

Supporters said the package aims to broaden the pool of applicants for judicial positions — particularly experienced lawyers who might otherwise be deterred by long vesting periods — while aligning contribution rates with other state plans. Testimony emphasized supervisory controls, actuarial analysis and the goal of improved long‑term solvency. Opponents did not appear in force at the committee hearing; several members asked follow‑up questions and indicated they would continue oversight as the bills proceed.

The bills will proceed with the committee’s due‑pass recommendation for HB182 and further consideration for HB183 as roll results are finalized.