By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
Legal MagLegal Mag
  • Home
  • Firm Management
  • Legal Technology
  • General Counsel
  • Litigation
  • Regulation
  • Deals & Transactions
Reading: New Retirement Age for Judges? Proponents Tout It as Remedy to Judge Shortage
Share
Notification Show More
Latest News
Representing Uber, Jenner & Block Urges 2nd Circuit to Find that Rideshare Drivers Are Not Exempt from Arbitration
2 hours ago
Legal Speak at Legalweek 2023: Lex Machina’s Karl Harris and Casepoint’s Jessica Robinson
5 hours ago
Phillips 66 Topped Off Tank of New GC for Forfeiting Stock at Norfolk Southern
5 hours ago
‘Sufficiently Reliable and Relevant’ Expert Testimony Survives Southwest’s Motion to Exclude in Customers’ Class-Certification Suit
8 hours ago
Generative AI’s Role in the Courts: The Morning Minute
11 hours ago
Aa
Legal MagLegal Mag
Aa
  • Firm Management
  • Legal Technology
  • General Counsel
  • Litigation
  • Regulation
  • Deals & Transactions
  • Home
  • Firm Management
  • Legal Technology
  • General Counsel
  • Litigation
  • Regulation
  • Deals & Transactions
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Contact
© 2022 All Rights Reserved. Legal Magazine.
Legal Mag > Blog > Litigation > New Retirement Age for Judges? Proponents Tout It as Remedy to Judge Shortage
Litigation

New Retirement Age for Judges? Proponents Tout It as Remedy to Judge Shortage

Press Room
Press Room 3 months ago
Updated 2023/01/10 at 12:34 AM
Share
SHARE

Will raising New Jersey’s mandatory judicial retirement age ease the shortage of judges in the state’s courts?

Contents
‘The Time Is Ripe for This’77 Judges on RecallUphill Battle?

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’

Sen. Shirley Turner (courtesy photo)

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

Assemblyman John McKeon

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.

You Might Also Like

Representing Uber, Jenner & Block Urges 2nd Circuit to Find that Rideshare Drivers Are Not Exempt from Arbitration

‘Sufficiently Reliable and Relevant’ Expert Testimony Survives Southwest’s Motion to Exclude in Customers’ Class-Certification Suit

9th Circuit: Seattle Landlords Can Inquire About Tenants’ Criminal History

White & Case Ends New Client’s Two Decades International Dispute with $32M Verdict

Pa. Supreme Court Completes U-Turn on Validity of Household Exclusion

Press Room January 10, 2023
Share this Article
Facebook TwitterEmail Print
Previous Article Pennsylvania Federal Judge Hits Chemical Co. With Sanctions
Next Article Privacy Suit Claims Meta Tracked Protected Data From California DMV Website
Leave a comment Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

- Advertisement -
Ad imageAd image

Latest News

Representing Uber, Jenner & Block Urges 2nd Circuit to Find that Rideshare Drivers Are Not Exempt from Arbitration
Litigation
Legal Speak at Legalweek 2023: Lex Machina’s Karl Harris and Casepoint’s Jessica Robinson
Legal Technology
Phillips 66 Topped Off Tank of New GC for Forfeiting Stock at Norfolk Southern
General Counsel
‘Sufficiently Reliable and Relevant’ Expert Testimony Survives Southwest’s Motion to Exclude in Customers’ Class-Certification Suit
Litigation

You Might Also Like

Litigation

Representing Uber, Jenner & Block Urges 2nd Circuit to Find that Rideshare Drivers Are Not Exempt from Arbitration

2 hours ago
Litigation

‘Sufficiently Reliable and Relevant’ Expert Testimony Survives Southwest’s Motion to Exclude in Customers’ Class-Certification Suit

8 hours ago
Litigation

9th Circuit: Seattle Landlords Can Inquire About Tenants’ Criminal History

11 hours ago
Litigation

White & Case Ends New Client’s Two Decades International Dispute with $32M Verdict

14 hours ago
about us

We influence 20 million users and is the number one business and technology news network on the planet.

  • My Bookmarks
  • Customize Interests
  • Home
    • Home 2
    • Home 3
    • Home 4
  • Posts
    • Post Layouts
    • Gallery Layouts
    • Video Layouts
    • Audio Layouts
    • Post Sidebar
    • Review
      • User Rating
    • Content Features
    • Table of Contents
  • Pages
    • Blog Index
    • Search Page
    • 404 Page
    • Customize Interests
    • My Bookmarks
  • Categories
  • Bookmarks
    • Customize Interests
    • My Bookmarks
  • More Foxiz
    • Blog Index
    • Sitemap

Find Us on Socials

© 2022 All Rights Reserved. Legal Magazine.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Contact
Join Us!

Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss our latest news, podcasts etc..

I have read and agree to the terms & conditions
Zero spam, Unsubscribe at any time.

Removed from reading list

Undo
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Lost your password?