Legal News

States Mull Changes to Mandatory Retirement Ages for Judges

By Ashby Jones

Old people rule!

We should say up front that we don’t exactly know what qualifies as “old” these days, but people definitely seem to be doing more into their 60s, 70s and beyond than they ever did before. They run marathons and triathlons, they go back to law school, they retire not to high-rises in south Florida, but to midwestern college towns.

So, we ask, why should judges be made to retire at their 70th birthday?

Such is the thinking of a handful of states mulling changes to their rules requiring judges to step down at age 70. Click here for the story, from the National Law Journal.

Writes the NLJ’s Marcia Coyle:

In 2009, the Center reported, Kansas increased the age at which their justices must retire from 70 to 75, and South Dakota’s House of Representatives also approved an increase from 70 to 75.

The nine states that have recently considered or are considering legislation to increase or eliminate mandatory retirement ages for state judges are: Alabama (from 70 to 72); Arizona (70 to 75); Massachusetts (70 to 76); New Hampshire (70 to none); New Jersey (70 to 75); New York (70 to none); Virginia (70 to 73); Washington (75 to none), and Wyoming (70 to none).

So what’s behind the move? According to William Raftery, a court research analyst at the National Center for State Courts, the move comes as “the Baby Boom generation ages, life expectancies increase, and more veteran and able judges are forced into retirement.”

LBers, any thoughts? A few weeks ago, in this post, we suggested that the ripe old age of 90 might be a suitable retirement age for federal judges. (According to Coyle’s story, at least one state — Vermont — agrees with us). What do you think the age should be? 70? 75? 90? None at all?

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on April 14, 2010 (boomark / email).