This story was originally produced by The Keene Sentinel. NHPR is republishing it in partnership with the Granite State News Collaborative.
When New Hampshire voters examine the Nov. 5 general election ballot they will see a proposed constitutional amendment that hasn’t generated much public attention.
In 2023, the state Legislature overwhelmingly supported having voters decide at the next general election whether to amend the state constitution to raise the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75.
Rep. Bob Lynn, R-Windham, was the prime sponsor of the proposal, which the House approved 321-27, and the Senate passed, 22-1.
Lynn, 75, told the House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 18, 2023, that he would have continued to be a N.H. Supreme Court justice if he hadn’t been forced to retire in 2019.
“I know I’ve lost a step or two physically, that’s for sure,” Lynn said. “But mentally, I think I’ve still got my faculties and would still be able to do a good job as a judge.”
He said the state has an extraordinarily good group of judges on the bench, some of whom would likely want to stay beyond the current mandatory retirement age of 70.
“I think we lose some very good people as judges because they have to leave early,” he said.
Sen. Donna Soucy, D-Manchester, a co-sponsor of the legislation, said the constitutional requirement dates to the late 1700s, when life expectancy was about 35 years.
In 2022, average life expectancy in the U.S. was 77.5, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“One of the things that makes a good judge or justice is the ability to reason, work through the arguments and being open to hear all the arguments,” said Soucy, 57. “A lot of the best judges are experienced judges.”
Among those voting against putting the issue on the ballot was Rep. Nicholas Germana, D-Keene.
“I think it’s important to get some younger blood, younger minds into the judiciary, and I don’t see the benefit of us having judges who are going to be serving longer,” said Germana, 49, a history professor at Keene State College.
“Obviously there are going to be questions that come up around decreased capacity, but just as important is having new blood and new ideas in the judiciary and in all the other branches of government.”
As it is, many of the people serving in the N.H. Legislature are older retirees who don’t have first-hand experience with the challenges facing younger people and younger families, Germana said.
According to the Center for Youth Political Participation at the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University in New Jersey, the average age of a state legislator in New Hampshire last year was 59.6.
Rep. Joe Alexander, R-Goffstown, also voted against the proposal.
He said there appears to be an adequate pool of people wishing to become a judge, and so no real need to extend the maximum allowable age for those now serving.
Alexander, 29, also said extending the age would mean there would be fewer opportunities for younger people to become a judge.
“Why not let the next generation start doing what they have to do?” he asked.
A Sept. 19 University of New Hampshire poll of 1,491 likely voters found only 12 percent understood the proposal, 15 percent would vote for it, 56 percent would vote against it and 29 percent were unsure.
It would require a two-thirds majority in order to pass. Mandatory retirement ages for judges vary by state. In Massachusetts, it is 70, while it is 90 in Vermont and Maine has no upper age limit.
