Committee delays bill to raise judicial retirement age to 65 for judges taking office after July 1, 2026

Representative Levert introduced House Bill 406, proposing to raise the retirement age for superior-court judges from 60 to 65 for anyone who takes office on or after July 1, 2026. The committee did not advance the bill in its current form and asked the sponsor to prepare a substitute to address a range of issues raised by members.

"The main purpose of the bill is for any person who becomes a judge after July 1 of this year, their retirement age will go from 60 to 65," Representative Levert said, explaining that the change would align superior-court judges with appellate judges, who retire at 65. Levert said the change would apply only to judges taking office after the effective date and would not alter the benefits of those already serving.

Committee members pressed on complex legal and contractual questions. Several lawmakers asked how the change would affect employees who accrued service in another classification of the retirement systemfor example, district attorneys or state-court judgesand then later became superior-court judges. One member asked whether a person who previously accrued service and vested under the DA classification could later be treated differently if the superior-court retirement age is raised.

Jim, Executive Director of the Employees' Retirement System of Georgia, told the committee that membership in the system creates contractual rights. "If you become a member of the system, you do lock in contractual rights at that point," Jim said, indicating that the system's legal obligations to vested members would constrain possible retroactive changes. Committee members and counsel noted that detailed drafting would be required to address permutations of prior service, vesting, and benefit calculations.

Lawmakers also raised the potential for the proposal to become a fiscal bill if drafting changes or protections for current members alter costs. Members requested actuarial analysis and a fiscal certification from the state auditor before the measure moves forward. Representative Levert acknowledged those concerns and said he would prepare a substitute and return the bill to committee with clarifying language.

Why it matters: changing retirement age affects long-term liabilities and benefit calculations for a defined-benefit system and raises constitutional questions about vested rights. Lawmakers voiced the need to protect members' contractual rights while aligning judicial retirement ages.

Next steps: Representative Levert will draft a substitute to clarify treatment of members with prior service in other classifications, commission actuarial analysis as appropriate, and seek any required fiscal certification before returning the bill to committee.