The debate over mandatory judicial retirement continues. The Patriot-News is reporting on efforts by state Rep. Kate Harper and Sen. Lisa Boscola to introduce legislation that would amend Pennsylvania’s constitution and raise judges’ retirement age from 70 to 75. While the legislature takes steps to consider change, supporters on both sides of the issue are discussing the merits of mandatory judicial retirement.
 
One side argues that increasing the retirement age will keep judges with valuable experience on the bench. Lycoming County Judge Dudley Anderson said, “There’s a lot of valuable manpower out there that perhaps the commonwealth is being deprived of with the mandatory retirement age.” As life expectancy increases and people incorporate healthier habits into their lifestyles, the health concerns that originally motivated mandatory retirement lose relevance. Federal judges serve for life, and many are on the bench well past age 70. Not to mention, no other branch of government is subjected to mandatory retirement restrictions.
 
The other side points out that mandatory retirement allows for turnover within the judiciary. Retirement at age 70 creates openings that can be filled by younger candidates who might not otherwise have an opportunity to take a seat on the bench. Pennsylvania also employs a senior judge system that enables retired judges to be tapped on a limited basis. Additionally, this eliminates the need for a forced mid-term removal if competency becomes an issue.
 
Judicial retirement after a judge turns 70 is a controversial issue here in Pennsylvania and around the country. Several states are revisiting their mandatory judicial retirement ages. As is the case with many hot topics, mandatory judicial retirement presents no easy answers. Organizations like the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts have not taken a formal position on the issue. Even judges themselves are conflicted. Former Dauphin County Judge Warren G. Morgan supports raising the retirement age, but also appreciates the opportunity to enjoy his hobbies in his retirement. Likewise, Judge Anderson sees the benefits of allowing judges to serve longer, but wouldn’t personally want to serve past 70. Regardless of your position, there will be plenty of opportunity to explore both sides of the issue as the bill to raise the mandatory judicial retirement age makes its way through the constitutional amendment process.