Senate passes judges' retirement benefit bill after failed amendment to restore three‑year averaging

Senate Bill 64, a measure to modify judges’ retirement benefits, passed the Utah Senate after an extended floor debate over whether retirement benefits for judges should be calculated on a two‑year rolling average rather than the three‑year average used for most other state employees.

Senator Cornaby, describing the bill as a governor‑backed proposal, said the changes “sweeten” judicial retirement and are intended to recruit more senior attorneys to the bench; the bill’s cost was described as absorbed within the judges’ retirement plan and paid from court fees rather than the general fund. Opponents argued for parity with other professions and proposed an amendment to replace the bill’s two‑year calculation with a three‑year calculation. That amendment was put to a roll‑call vote: the motion to amend failed (recorded as 9 ayes, 10 nays, with 10 senators absent on the roll-call), after which the Senate proceeded to final passage. The clerk reported final passage of SB64 as 18 ayes, 1 nay, and 10 absent; the bill will be transmitted to the House for further action.

Floor debate included questions about recruitment objectives, fairness compared with other retirement calculations, the number of judges appointed under age 40, and whether changing the averaging period was necessary to attract more experienced judges. The sponsor and supporters argued the two‑year average is an essential component of the broader retirement package intended to make judicial service more attractive.