New Retirement Age for Judges? Proponents Tout It as Remedy to Judge Shortage
"We have one of the worst pension funds in terms of the pension liability. If we keep the judge there for an additional five years, it will strengthen their pension fund," Sen. Shirley Turner said.
January 09, 2023 at 05:49 PM
4 minute read
JudgesWill raising New Jersey's mandatory judicial retirement age ease the shortage of judges in the state's courts?
A pair of measures pending in the Legislature would raise the mandatory retirement age for New Jersey judges, which now stands at 70.
And supporters think having judges stay on the job a few more years could be a remedy to the current shortage of Superior Court judges.
Introduced in December 2022 by Sen. Shirley Turner, D-Hunterdon and Mercer, S-3423 would increase the retirement age to 75 for justices on the Supreme Court and judges in the Superior Court and Tax Court, as well as administrative law judges and Workers' Compensation Court judges.
And A-3098, introduced in March 2022 by Assemblyman John McKeon, D-Essex and Morris, would change the retirement date from 70 to 72 for all the same groups, as well as county prosecutors.
'The Time Is Ripe for This'
Turner views her bill as a remedy to the current judge shortage.
"The time is ripe for this because we have an all-time high in terms of judicial vacancies in the state. At the same time, I'm hearing from constituents who are complaining that it's taking an inordinate amount of time for their cases to be heard in court. And we all know justice delayed is justice denied," Turner said.
"We've got to do everything that we can to fill these vacancies," Turner said. "One way would be to change the retirement age."
Turner noted that the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and federal judges have no mandatory retirement age and that people are living longer. She added that her bill would reduce the court's need for recall retired judges, who continue to serve while collecting a pension as well as additional pay for their hours worked.
And her bill would reduce the burden on the state's pension system for judges, Turner said.
"We have one of the worst pension funds in terms of the pension liability. If we keep the judge there for an additional five years, it will strengthen their pension fund. We know … when these judges retire on recall, they receive a pension and they get paid to be on recall, so they're more or less double dipping," Turner said.
McKeon's bill was approved by the Assembly Judiciary Committee in May 2022 and now is under review by the Assembly State and Local Government Committee. He could not immediately be reached for comment. Turner's bill has not been referred to a committee.
77 Judges on Recall
New Jersey's Superior Court has 65 vacancies, out of 463 authorized judgeships, for a 14% vacancy rate.
Another 77 judges are now serving on recall.
The current level of vacancies is a bit lower than the 75 empty judgeships the judiciary had in February 2021, when Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote to Gov. Phil Murphy, then-Senate President Steven Sweeney and then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Nicholas Scutari urging them to nominate and confirm a "significant number" of new judges.
Uphill Battle?
To change the mandatory retirement age of justices and judges, the Turner and McKeon bills would require voters to approve a referendum revising the state constitution after the bill is passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor.
Changing the retirement age for the other positions would not require a public referendum.
The measures also would not change pension eligibility rules, and judges wishing to retire at 70 would still have that option if they are eligible.
But getting voters to approve such a measure could be an uphill battle.
In Pennsylvania, the judicial retirement age rose to 75 in 2016 after voters approved a constitutional amendment.
But Pennsylvania is an outlier, and voters have rejected measures to raise the judicial retirement age in seven other states that held votes on the issue since 2011, according to the National Center for State Courts.
Those states where voters rejected a higher judicial retirement age are Arizona, Hawaii, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, Oregon and Wyoming.
Among states with mandatory retirement ages for judges and justices, 70 is the most popular age, according to the NCSC. Other states have chosen 72 or 75 as the mandatory retirement age, or 90, in the case of Vermont. Another 18 states have no mandatory retirement age for judges.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDemocrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal With GOP
Superior Court Bench Gains 5 New Judges After Senate Swiftly Moves Nominations
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250