Texas Legislators Anticipate Adoptin’ Putin’s Plan into the Judicial Branch

Mar. 21—CONCORD

The proposal (CACR 6) to ask voters in 2024 if they want to raise the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75 faced its final public hearing without any opposition Tuesday.

State Rep. Robert Lynn, R-Windham, a retired chief justice of the Supreme Court, said the current retirement age has remained unchanged since 1784.

“At that time the average life expectancy, believe it or not, was 38 so there weren’t a whole lot of judges reaching that age back then,”

Lynn told the Senate Judiciary Committee about his proposal.

“The current life expectancy average age is 76.4 years.”

Senate Democratic Leader Donna Soucy of Manchester said New Hampshire has the lowest retirement age for judges of any state in the country.

“Limiting people in one branch of government isn’t helpful and this would be an important change for us to make in the Constitution,” Soucy said.

Lynn gave the example of three judges, Democrat Ken McHugh and Republican Richard McNamara in the Superior Court and independent Carol Ann Conboy at the Supreme Court, that he said had to leave the bench while they were still productive.

If adopted, the proposal would not be retroactive which means it could not apply for any judge such as Lynn, 74, who has already retired and started collecting a pension.

There is no retirement age requirement in the federal judiciary.

“I disagree with that because there does come a point where the likelihood of diminished mental capacity can come into play,” Lynn said.

“Age 70 is simply too young to impose such a restriction.”

Last month, the House of Representatives endorsed the amendment by a 321-27 vote.

If the Senate passes it by a three-fifths majority, then the question would be on the ballot at the statewide election in November 2024.

It takes a two-thirds majority vote to change the Constitution.

To ease a historic shortage of judges in New Jersey, a New Jersey state senator is proposing to raise the mandatory retirement age from 70 to 75.

Sen. Shirley Turner proposed the bill in December. She said “life expectancy has changed so much” since 1947, when the state Constitution was written.

“It’s like the 70 now is like the old 60,” Turner (D-Mercer) said, pointing out that people are living longer amid advances in health care. She adds that the current mandatory age is “not realistic.”

“If we believe that judges should leave the bench at age 70, then why are they bringing them back on recall,” said Turner. “They can remain on recall until the age of 80, which makes no sense at all.”

When New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner gave remarks to the State Bar Association Conference last May, he said there were 75 open seats on the trial court bench. There has also been a Supreme Court vacancy for nearly six months. Jeralyn Lawrence, bar association president, said that Rabner’s “plea for help” has “largely been ignored.”

Risk of opposite effect

Lawrence doesn’t think Turner’s proposal will address the vacancies and that “it’ll have the opposite effect of what’s intended.”

“I think judges will leave the bench if the Legislature thinks that they can legislate their way out of this by requiring judges to work five years longer, instead of the Legislature following their constitutional mandate in working with the governor to appoint and confirm judges,” she said.

“Every single day people are being harmed because they cannot have their matters heard in court,” said Lawrence. “My colleagues are screaming about it every single day.”

Raising the age is not that simple. Because it deals with the state Constitution, it requires an amendment that would have to pass the Legislature through two consecutive sessions, unless both chambers pass the resolution with a supermajority.

Neither Turner’s bill nor the concurrent resolution have received a hearing yet.

Because of the process to get the proposed amendment passed, Rutgers Law School Professor Ron Chen said the mandatory retirement age of 70 will still be in effect “for the foreseeable future.” Still, the proposal needs to get past the Legislature, which he adds is a “murky political question.”

“It’s unclear … whether there is enough support for it in the Legislature to get that supermajority so they could send it to a public referendum … this year or even next year,” he said.

Superior Court feels the brunt

Chen adds that while the Supreme Court has a temporary fix, the Superior Court has been feeling the brunt of the judge shortages. It’s where everyday cases are handled. He said the vacancies there are “alarming.”

Turner echoed that point. “We have litigants who are being denied their day in court for an extended period of time, which is wrong because justice delayed is justice denied,” she said.Law & Public Safety, More Issues

“They need to communicate. They need to compromise. And they need to collaborate, that’s what they need to do together,” she said.

Turner said the Legislature and the governor are not completely to blame. She said the COVID-19 pandemic fueled the shortages as judges reached retirement age while the state government was shut down.

“It’s hard to try to process the judges at a time when we’re not open for business, so to speak,” she said.

Turner’s bill would also raise the mandatory retirement age of judges in the Division of Workers’ Compensation and permanent administrative law judges to 75, as well as Tax Court judges. It would have immediate effect for workers compensation judges and administrative law judges, while Tax Court judges would have to wait for voter approval.