Voters to Weigh Judicial Retirement Age, Term Limits, Discipline

New Hampshire voters will be the next to decide when the oldest state judges should be forced to leave the bench.

The general election ballot there includes a proposal (CACR 6) to set the mandatory retirement age for judges, including Supreme Court justices, at 75, up from the current maximum age of 70.

“Unlike some occupations—police officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician—generally someone doesn’t get into the role of being a judge until at least middle age,” said New Hampshire state Rep. Bob Lynn (R), who was chief justice of the state Supreme Court for just over a year before being forced into retirement.

“If you have to retire at age 70, your career in the judiciary is not particularly long,” Lynn, who sponsored the effort to put the constitutional change on the ballot, said in an interview. “It just doesn’t make sense to arbitrarily say 70 is the age when somebody should retire.”

The retirement age question is one of several potential changes to judicial systems being considered in the Nov. 5 election. Arizona voters are being asked to scrap most retention elections and Colorado voters will decide about a process for handling judicial misconduct.

Lynn’s retirement age proposal made it to the ballot with bipartisan support. “Having some judicial experience is valuable, and I think we lose judges in many cases a little too early,” state Senate Minority Leader Donna Soucy (D) said in an interview.

Of the 50 states, 33 have set maximum ages for judges, according to data compiled by the National Center for State Courts. New Hampshire is among 18 states that have set the limit at age 70.

Texas was the most recent state to consider the question of how old is too old for the bench.

A year ago, voters there said no to letting 75-year-old judges delay their retirement. “Voters tend not to want to give any elected or appointed official one more day in office than they currently have,” said William Raftery, senior knowledge management analyst for the National Center for State Courts.

Ending Term Limits

Arizona’s ballot measure (Proposition 137) asks voters to give up their own ability to tell judges they’re fired. It would erase judicial term limits and end retention elections, and render moot the retention election that’s on the November ballot.

The Republican-controlled state legislature put the measure on the ballot after abortion rights advocates started campaigning against two Supreme Court justices who agreed to uphold an abortion law from 1864. During floor debate, backers argued that removals are rare, showing that voters are happy with judges who meet good behavior standards.

Cathy Sigmon, co-founder of Civic Engagement Beyond Voting, said she’s campaigning to defeat the proposal because it would take away voters’ “voice and oversight.”

“We in Arizona are incredibly lucky to be able to weigh in on our judiciary,” she said in an email.

Arizona Voters Asked to Protect Judges Following Abortion Ruling

Arizona Supreme Court justices currently are appointed for at least two years, after which they may be selected to serve an additional six year term. Superior court judges also start with a two year term, and if retained, they can serve another four years.

The amendment would replace judicial terms with terms of good behavior, allowing a judge to hold onto their seat until the mandatory retirement age of 70.

Judicial Discipline

Colorado voters will decide whether to create a judicial discipline adjudicative board composed of judges, attorneys, and citizens. The proposal (HCR23-1001) is a response to a scandal involving former Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Coats and other court officials.

Coats was disciplined for letting a former administrator obtain a $2.7 million contract with the court—allegedly a quid pro quo deal for her silence regarding sexual discrimination—while she was being probed for financial misconduct. The contract was. The scandal revealed flaws in the way Colorado handles judicial misconduct, including a lack of transparency regarding how judges are held accountable.

“The point isn’t so much specific events or personalities,” but modernizing and updating the structure of judicial discipline based on lessons learned, said state Rep. Mike Weissman (D) in an interview.

The amendment would displace the Colorado Supreme Court’s role in responding to judicial conduct, and give members of the public more information about disciplinary proceedings earlier in the process.

Chris Forsyth, executive director of advocacy organization the Judicial Integrity Project, said in an interview that the amendment is a “minimal change” that “is not going to result in any more accountability.” Passing the measure could prevent more substantive reforms that address “Colorado’s problem in judicial discipline.”