Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judiciary Retirement Age topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary Committee backs ballot question to raise judges' mandatory retirement age to 73
Summary
After extended debate over recruitment and pension impacts, the Judiciary Committee voted to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would raise the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 73 and add orphans' court judges to that requirement.
The Judiciary Committee voted to send a proposed constitutional amendment to the ballot that would raise the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 73 and add orphans' court judges to the mandatory-retirement rule. The committee adopted an amendment adding orphans' court judges and approved the measure on a roll-call vote.
Committee members spent much of the discussion probing the policy's goals and fiscal effects. "The fiscal analysis shows that this is gonna have a $21,000,000 benefit to the state," said Carter, a committee fiscal analyst, citing the study used in the bill packet. Several members pushed back, saying the figure reflects reduced future pension payouts rather than new revenue. "You're not actually saving $21,000,000 — it's just where it's coming from," Delegate Valentine said, arguing the change shifts costs between funds.
Supporters said raising the age would broaden the pool of applicants and retain experienced judges. "Life expectancy today is about 80 years old," a committee member said during debate, urging that three additional years is modest compared with surrounding states where retirement ages are 74 or 75. Opponents warned that extending the age could make it harder to refresh benches and remove underperforming judges through normal turnover; Delegate Aragon said the change could reduce a mechanism that has sometimes returned new perspectives to the bench.
Committee members also pressed procedural questions about implementation. Carter and staff explained the measure is a constitutional amendment and would take effect 30 days after voter approval. Staff clarified that the fiscal "savings" cited in the analysis reflect lower general fund pension liabilities over time rather than increased state revenue.
The committee chair reminded members that the proposal will ultimately be decided by voters, and that past ballot measures on related retirement questions have been defeated in statewide referenda. The committee's recorded vote on the bill as amended was taken and the motion carried; the committee will send the amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.
Next steps: if the amendment is approved by voters, the constitutional change would become effective 30 days after certification of the election results.
