Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Term Limits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debate spotlights opposition to judicial term limits proposed in SJR 15
Summary
SJR 15, which would change legislative and judicial term‑limit rules, drew extended testimony from judges, bar leaders and younger attorneys who warned judicial term limits would deter qualified candidates and harm rural courts; the committee heard many cautionary statements and several members sought technical clarifications.
Senate Joint Resolution 15, a proposed constitutional amendment to change term limits for legislators and to add term limits for judges, generated the meeting’s lengthiest debate and extensive public testimony. Sponsor Senator Clark described changes to legislative term limits and proposed judicial limits (16 years for judges in the amended proposal).
Multiple current and former judges, the Arkansas Bar Association leadership and young lawyers testified in opposition to judicial term limits, citing three main concerns: (1) candidate recruitment, especially in rural areas where private practice incomes are limited; (2) loss of judicial experience and institutional knowledge that accrues with longer bench service; and (3) retirement and financial implications because many attorneys build practices over decades and would face difficulty restarting a private practice after judicial service.
Judge Clinton Casey Jones warned the committee that newer judges typically need many years on the bench to reach full competence in complex civil work and that term limits would discourage potential candidates. Josh Farmer, a 36‑year‑old city attorney who said he hopes one day to be a judge, said a 16‑year limit would make him “have great pause and reason to not want to run” because he could be forced to rebuild a legal practice in his 50s.
Bar association leaders urged rejection of judicial term limits, noting Arkansas would be an outlier nationally. Senators asked technical questions about grandfathering existing judges, vesting and retirement calculations; committee members signaled varying views and said they would consider technical changes. No final committee vote on SJR 15 was recorded before adjournment; sponsors and opponents agreed to continue work on the proposal and to gather additional technical clarifications.
