Ballot Language:

The constitutional amendment permitting a justice or judge who reaches the mandatory retirement age while in office to serve the remainder of the justice’s or judge’s current term.

HJR-36 History

Current Texas law sets a mandatory retirement age of 75 for judges, requiring judges to vacant their offices mid-term, creating a need for a special election and general chaos. This amendment removes the requirement to vacate, allowing the elected judge to finish his term.

BigJolly says: Let the old guys finish their terms already. Texas probably needs to consider eliminating the mandatory retirement age altogether. I’m not getting any younger.

Click to read comments for and against.

From the Texas Legislative Council Summary (note: 131 page pdf file):

Comments by Supporters: Allowing a justice or judge to complete the term of office to which the individual was elected fulfills the intent of the electorate. A justice or judge is elected to serve a specific term of office, and in electing the justice or judge the voters have expressed a desire for the justice or judge to serve the entire term of office. The voters have expressed confidence in the qualifications and abilities of the justice or judge and have determined that the justice or judge should be elected to office regardless of the age of the justice or judge.

Requiring a justice or judge to retire mid-term disrupts the efficient and orderly administration of justice. Immediate retirement requires cases being handled by the justice or judge to be delayed while a temporary justice or judge is selected. A case may also be delayed if a new justice or judge is elected and takes over a case from the temporary judge. Allowing a justice or judge to continue to serve for the duration of the term of office ensures that the succession process will be efficient and predictable. The amendment will provide for the election of a successor justice or judge at the end of the term of office and will avoid the appointment of an inexperienced, temporary successor serving until the next election cycle.

Judicial retirement pay is based on the length of service and pay rate of the justice or judge. Allowing a justice or judge to complete the term of office to which the justice or judge was elected promotes long-term judicial service because retirement benefits continue to increase as long as the justice or judge continues to serve. Experience is crucial to providing a competent judiciary.

Methods other than mandatory retirement are available to protect the courts from incompetent justices and judges. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct investigates reports of alleged impropriety and incompetence and has authority to remove justices and judges who are determined to be unfit to serve. Mandatory retirement is not needed to protect the integrity of the judiciary.

The amendment will remove the issue of the age of a justice or judge from the political arena and remove mandatory retirement from politics.

The amendment includes a limited exception that creates continuity between a justice or judge elected to a four-year term of office and a justice or judge elected to a six-year term of office. The exception provides that a justice or judge serving a six-year term of office will vacate the office on December 31 of the fourth year of the term. This requirement guarantees that a justice or judge will not serve longer than four years after the justice or judge reaches the mandatory retirement age. The amendment treats a justice or judge elected to a six-year term of office in the same manner as a justice or judge elected to a four-year term of office.

The proposed constitutional amendment is a compromise between arguments supporting mandatory retirement and arguments opposing mandatory retirement. The amendment does not eliminate mandatory retirement but rather extends the service of a justice or judge who has reached mandatory retirement age until the end of the elected term of office or until December 31 of the fourth year.

Comments by Opponents: Mandatory retirement is a way to remove an aging justice or judge who is continuing to serve despite ineffectiveness. The protections of incumbency often make it difficult to remove an aging justice or judge. Timely retirement on reaching the mandatory age ensures a capable and alert judiciary for the state. This extension allows justices and judges to serve past their 75th birthday and delays the election or appointment of new justices and judges who may be better versed in current developments in the law.

Mandatory retirement for justices and judges should be eliminated and this amendment does not accomplish this goal. Sufficient protections are in place to ensure the professional quality of justices and judges and mandatory retirement is not needed. Voters should be allowed to elect the justice or judge who is best qualified to serve, and that justice or judge should be allowed to serve without regard to age. The federal government and many states have abolished mandatory retirement and Texas should as well.