New Hampshire House Bill CACR6

New Hampshire 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/28/22
• Refer: 12/28/22
• Report Pass: 2/8/23
• Engrossed: 3/7/23
• Refer: 3/7/23
• Report Pass: 3/21/23

Caption

Relating to the retirement age for judges. Providing that the mandatory judicial retirement age shall be increased from 70 to 75.

Impact

The passage of CACR6 would have significant implications for state laws regarding the tenure of judges. If approved, it would permit judges to remain in office longer, impacting judicial appointments, case management, and the overall makeup of the judiciary. This change could lead to increased experience among judges but may also raise debates about the appropriateness of extending the tenure of aging judges in an evolving legal landscape.

Summary

CACR6 is a proposed constitutional amendment in New Hampshire that seeks to increase the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75 years. The resolution is a response to growing concerns about the aging population and the value of experienced judges in the judicial system. By amending Article 78 of the state constitution, the bill aims to allow judges to serve for an additional five years, thereby potentially enhancing the stability and continuity of the judiciary in the state.

Sentiment

The sentiment around CACR6 appears to lean towards support, as indicated by the voting summary where there were 22 votes in favor and only 1 against. Such a strong consensus suggests that many legislators see the value in keeping experienced judges on the bench. However, there may be underlying concerns about the implications of extending retirement ages, including debates about ageism and the capacity for older judges to fulfill their roles effectively.

Contention

While the general discussion reflects a favorable view towards CACR6, potential contention emerges around the concept of mandatory retirement based on age. Critics of the existing retirement age may argue against the necessity of age as a criterion for retirement, promoting the idea that a judge's capability should be evaluated on performance rather than a fixed age. Therefore, the bill may provoke further discussions about judicial qualifications and how best to maintain the integrity and efficacy of the judiciary.