Texas Proposition 13, Increase Mandatory Retirement Age for State Judges Amendment (2023)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Texas Proposition 13
Flag of Texas.png
Election date
November 7, 2023
Topic
State judiciary
Status
Defeatedd Defeated
Type
Constitutional amendment
Origin
State legislature

Texas Proposition 13, the Increase Mandatory Retirement Age for State Judges Amendment, was on the ballot in Texas as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 7, 2023.[1][2]The ballot measure was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution to increase the mandatory retirement age for state judges and justices from 75 to 79.

A "no" vote opposed increasing the mandatory retirement age of state justices and judges and removing the requirement that if a judge or justice is elected to serve a six-year term and reaches 75 years of age during the first four years of service the justice or judge must vacate the office on December 31 of the fourth year of the term.


Election results

Texas Proposition 13

Result Votes Percentage
Yes 932,834 37.31%

Defeated No

1,567,129 62.69%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Overview

How would this amendment have changed the mandatory judicial retirement age?

See also: Text of measure

In Texas, state judges are required to retire at age 75. This is known as the mandatory retirement age and is set in the state constitution. The amendment would have increased the mandatory retirement age for state judges and justices from 75 to 79. It would also have increased the minimum retirement age from 70 to 75.

Texas adopted the mandatory retirement age in 1965 with the approval of Proposition 8. The retirement age has been 75 years since its adoption. In 2007, Texans approved Proposition 14, which allowed judges elected to serve a six-year term but that reach 75 years of age during the first four years of service to serve until December 31 of the fourth year of the term. This provision would have been repealed.[2]

Who supported and opposed the amendment?

See also: Support and Opposition

Statutory Probate Judges of Texas, Texans for Lawsuit Reform, Texas Association of Retired, Senior, and Former Judges, Inc., Texas Civil Justice League, Texas Trial Lawyers Association, and Texas Watch registered in support of the amendment. Judge Doug Woodburn (Texas 108th District Court) said, "Things have changed. People live longer now. People stay healthy and are more capable now than they might have been many years ago when that constitutional provision was originally written. We do a lot better than we used to."[3]

State Rep. Steve Toth (R-15), who voted against the amendment, said, "The Judiciary has garnered more authority than our Founders had ever anticipated. Turnover is a good thing in government, especially in the Judiciary."[4]

Do other states have a mandatory retirement age for state judges?

See also: Mandatory judicial retirement ages by state

At the time of the election, 31 states and the District of Columbia set mandatory retirement ages. In 2002, Vermont established the highest mandatory retirement age at 90. Seventeen states set their retirement age at 70 years old, four states set their age at 72, one state set it at 73, eight states set it at 75, and one state set it at 90.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:[2]

The constitutional amendment to increase the mandatory age of retirement for state justices and judges.[5]

Constitutional changes

See also: Article 5, Texas Constitution

The measure would have amended section 1-a of Article 5 of the state constitution. The following underlined text would have added, and struck-through text would have deleted:[2]

1-a (1) Subject to the further provisions of this Section, the Legislature shall provide for the retirement and compensation of Justices and Judges of the Appellate Courts and District and Criminal District Courts on account of length of service, age and disability, and for their reassignment to active duty where and when needed. The office of every such Justice and Judge shall become vacant on the expiration of the term during which the incumbent reaches the age of 79 seventy-five (75) years or such earlier age, not less than 75 seventy (70) years, as the Legislature may prescribe, except that if a Justice or Judge elected to serve or fill the remainder of a six-year term reaches the age of seventy-five (75) years during the first four years of the term, the office of that Justice or Judge shall become vacant on December 31 of the fourth year of the term to which the Justice or Judge was elected.[5]

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2023

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The state legislature wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 14, and the FRE is 22. The word count for the ballot title is 15.


Support

Supporters

Organizations

  • Associated Builders and Contractors of Texas
  • Oldham County Attorneys Office
  • Statutory Probate Judges of Texas
  • Texans for Lawsuit Reform
  • Texas Association of Retired, Senior, and Former Judges, Inc.
  • Texas Civil Justice League
  • Texas Trial Lawyers Association
  • Texas Trucking Association
  • Texas Watch

Arguments

  • Judge Doug Woodburn, who serves on Texas 108th District Court: "Things have changed. People live longer now. People stay healthy and are more capable now than they might have been many years ago when that constitutional provision was originally written. We do a lot better than we used to."
  • Jack Walker, vice president of Texas Trial Lawyers Association: "We will likely be losing some great jurists with decades of experience and stable judgment. We also have the benefit of electing our judges in Texas, thus any instability issues with a particular judge can be taken care of by our electorate."


Opposition

Opponents

Organizations

  • Texans for Fiscal Responsibility
  • Texas Eagle Forum
  • True Texas Project

Arguments

  • State Rep. Steve Toth (R-15): "The Judiciary has garnered more authority than our Founders had ever anticipated. Turnover is a good thing in government, especially in the Judiciary."
  • True Texas Project: "The legislation says 'expiration of the term during which the incumbent reaches the age of 79 years or such earlier age, not less than 75 years.' As a result, some judges could serve into their 80s since the retirement is required, not when the judge turns 79, but at the expiration of the term in which he/she turns 79. Extending this retirement age is a severe roadblock to young attorneys challenging long-term incumbent judges."


Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Texas ballot measures

If you are aware of a committee registered to support or oppose this amendment, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.

Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Support $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Oppose $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Media editorials

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the proposition.

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

  • Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Prop 13, Raise judges’ retirement age: For. Raising the mandatory retirement age from 75 to 79 will allow respected judges to help reduce court backlogs. Age shouldn’t be the sole determining factor of a senior judge’s competence."
  • San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proposition 13: This would raise the mandatory retirement window of state judges from 70-75 to 75-79. Elections will still give voters the power to remove judges and the Judicial Conduct Commission exists to address the competency of judges. Our view: For."
  • The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "RECOMMENDATION: Yes. By 2030, the number of people 75 and older in the labor force is expected to rise 96.5%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Under current law, Texas judges and justices are required to retire at that age."
  • The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Older Judges Allowed: Yes. Proposition 13 would raise the age at which state judges are required to retire from 75 to 79. As 84-year-old federal Judge David Hittner recently demonstrated in placing a temporary restraining order on the state's anti-drag bill, older judges can do a lot of good."

Opposition

  • Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "This would increase the mandatory retirement age for state judges from 75 to 79. That would probably help with staffing issues, but in the era of decrepit senators and octogenarian presidential candidates, let’s chip away at the gerontocracy. Recommendation: Against."
  • Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Retired state judges already have the ability to keep working at any age — as visiting judges. At the same time, maintaining a retirement age of 75 helps ensure opportunities for the next generation to join the bench, cultivating a continually strong judiciary. We see no reason to change the status quo. Vote 'No.'"


Background

Ballot measures related to mandatory retirement ages for judges in Texas

See also: Texas Proposition 8 (1965) and Texas Proposition 14 (2007)

In 1965, Texas voters approved Proposition 8 adopting a mandatory retirement age for state judges and justices of 75 years of age. Proposition 8 was approved with 72.6% of the vote. In 2007, Texans approved Proposition 14, which allowed judges elected to serve a six-year term but that reach 75 years of age during the first four years of service to serve until December 31 of the fourth year of the term. Proposition 14 was approved with 75% of the vote.

Mandatory judicial retirement ages by state

See also: Mandatory retirement

Mandatory retirement is the compulsory retirement of judges who have reached a specific age determined by a state's constitution. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have set mandatory retirement ages as of 2023. In 2003, Vermont established the highest mandatory retirement age at 90 years old.[6]

Map

List of states

State Mandatory retirement age Additional information
Alabama 70[7] Judges may finish the final term during which they turn 70.[7]
Alaska 70[8]
Arizona 70[9][10]
Arkansas Judges who do not retire at 70 lose all earned retirement benefits.[11] No retirement age; however, judges lose their earned retirement benefits if they choose to seek re-election past age 70.[12]
California - No retirement age
Colorado 72[13]
Connecticut 70[14]
Delaware - No retirement age
District of Columbia 74[15]
Florida 75[16] Judges may finish the final term if more than one-half has been served at age 75.[16]
Georgia - No retirement age
Hawaii 70[17]
Idaho - No retirement age
Illinois - Used to be 75, but law was struck down by Illinois Supreme Court in 2009[18][19]
Indiana 75[20] No limit for superior court and county court judges.[21]
Iowa 72[22]
Kansas 75[23] Judges may finish the final term during which they turn 75[23]
Kentucky - No retirement age
Louisiana 70[24] Judges may finish the final term during which they turn 70[24]
Maine - No retirement age
Maryland 70[25]
Massachusetts 70[26]
Michigan 70[27] Judges may finish the final term during which they turn 70.[27]
Minnesota 70[28] Judges must retire the last day of the month in which they have turned 70[28]
Mississippi - No retirement age
Missouri 70/75[29][30] Judges other than municipal judges must retire at 70.[29] Municipal judges must retire at 75.[30]
Montana - No retirement age
Nebraska - No retirement age
Nevada - No retirement age
New Hampshire 70[31]
New Jersey 70[32] Judges serving as Administrative Director of the Courts may apply to defer retirement.[33]
New Mexico - No retirement age
New York 70[34] Judges may finish out year they turn 70. There is no retirement limit for Town and Village Courts.
North Carolina 72[35] Judges must retire the last day of the month in which they have turned 72[35]
North Dakota Judges who do not retire at 73 lose all earned retirement benefits.[36] No retirement age; however, judges lose their earned retirement benefits if they do not apply for retirement before turning 73.[37]
Ohio 70[38] Judges may finish the final term during which they turn 70[38]
Oklahoma - No retirement age; limit may be established by statute.[39]
Oregon 75[40] Limit may be reduced to as low as 70 by statute or initiative.[40]
Pennsylvania 75[41] Judges may finish out year they turn 75.[41]
Rhode Island - No retirement age[42]
South Carolina 72[43] No limit for Probate or Municipal Court judges.[43]
South Dakota 70[44] Judges that turn 70 may serve until the first Tuesday following a Monday of the year following the next state legislature election.[44]
Tennessee - No retirement age
Texas 75[45][46] Conditions may vary. See Article 5 for more information[45]
Utah 75[47]
Vermont 90[48]Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name cannot be a simple integer. Use a descriptive title Judges may finish out year they turn 90.[48]
Virginia 73[49] Judge will be retired 20 days after the regular session of the General Assembly following birthday.[49]
Washington 75[50] Judges may finish out year they turn 75.[50]
West Virginia - No retirement age
Wisconsin - The Wisconsin Blue Book 2005-2006 states: "Wisconsin used to have a mandatory retirement age for judges and justices. From 1955 to 1978, judges and justices had to retire at age 70. Since 1977, the Wisconsin Constitution has authorized the legislature to impose a maximum age of no less than 70, but the legislature has not done so."[51]
Wyoming 70[52]


Ballot measures related to mandatory retirement

Ballotpedia tracked 12 ballot measures related to mandatory retirement ages for judges between 1952 and 2022. Seven were approved, and five were defeated.

Year Measure Description Outcome Yes % No %
2022 Wyoming Constitutional Amendment B Would have increased the judicial retirement age from 70 to 75 for state supreme court justices and district court judges
Defeatedd
39.2% 60.8%
2016 Oregon Measure 94 Would have repealed the mandatory retirement age of 75
Defeatedd
37.0% 63.0%
2016 Pennsylvania Judicial Retirement Age Amendment Increased from 70 to 75 for Supreme Court justices, judges, and justices of the peace
Approveda
51.1% 48.9%
2014 Hawaii Amendment 3 Would have increased the mandatory age of retirement for judges and justices from 70 to 80
Defeatedd
22.0% 72.8%[53]
2014 Louisiana Amendment 5 Would have eliminated all mandatory age-based retirement requirements for state judges
Defeatedd
41.8% 58.2%
2013 New York Proposal 6 Would have increased mandatory retirement age from 70 to 80
Defeatedd
41.8% 58.2%
2011 Ohio Issue 1 Would have increased mandatory retirement age from 70 to 76
Defeatedd
38.0% 62.0%
2007 Texas Proposition 14 Permitted a justice or judge to serve the remainder of their term despite reaching the mandatory age for retirement
Approveda
75.0% 25.0%
2002 Vermont Retirement Age for Judges Amendment Authorized the legislature to pass mandatory retirement requirements to any age 70 or above
Approveda
64.2% 35.8%
1995 Louisiana Mandatory Age of Retirement for Judges Amendment Would have increased mandatory retirement age from 70 to 75
Defeatedd
37.7% 62.3%
1977 Wisconsin Question 5 Authorized the legislature to pass mandatory retirement requirements to any age 70 or above
Approveda
67.5% 32.5%
1952 Washington HJR 6 Established mandatory retirement at 75 years old but authorized the state legislature to lower it
Approveda
74.1% 25.9%

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Texas Constitution

To put a legislatively referred constitutional amendment before voters, a two-thirds (66.67%) vote is required in both the Texas State Senate and the Texas House of Representatives.

This amendment was introduced as House Joint Resolution 107 on March 3, 2023. On April 26, 2023, the state House passed HJR 107 by a vote of 141-5 with four not voting. The state Senate passed HJR 107 on May 15 by a vote of 27-4.[1]

Vote in the Texas House of Representatives
April 26, 2023
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 100  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total14154
Total percent94.0%3.3%2.7%
Democrat6301
Republican7853

Vote in the Texas State Senate
May 15, 2023
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 21  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total2740
Total percent87.1%12.9%0.0%
Democrat1200
Republican1540

See also

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Texas

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Texas.

External links

Footnotes

  1. 1.0 1.1 Texas State Legislature, "HJR 107 Overview," accessed April 27, 2023
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Texas State Legislature, "HJR 107 Text," accessed April 27, 2023
  3. Texas State Legislature, "House Joint Resolution 107 Witnesses," accessed June 2, 2023
  4. Houston Chronicle, "Texas Judicial Retirement Age," accessed October 26, 2023
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
  6. Vermont Public Radio, "Legislature sets judges' retirement age at 90 years," May 20, 2003
  7. 7.0 7.1 Justia, "Amendment 328 Ratified," accessed Jan. 26, 2022
  8. Alaskan Constitution Art. IV, Sec. 11
  9. Arizona Constitution Art. VI Sec. 20
  10. Arizona Constitution Art. VI Sec. 39
  11. Arkansas Code, "Title 24 - Retirement And Pensions," accessed Jan. 11, 2022
  12. Arkansas Times, "Arkansas judges want age limit removed," Jan. 19, 2022
  13. Colorado Constitution Art. VI Sec. 23
  14. Connecticut Constitution Art. V, Sec. 6
  15. Council of the District of Columbia, "§ 1–204.31. Judicial powers." accessed Jan. 19, 2022
  16. 16.0 16.1 Florida Constitution Art. V, Sec. 8
  17. Hawaii Constitution Art. VI, Sec. 3
  18. 705 ILCS 55/1 "Compulsory Retirement of Judges Act."
  19. ABA Journal, "Top Illinois Court Axes Mandatory Retirement Law for State Judges," June 18, 2009
  20. Chapter 13: The Commission on Judicial Qualifications and the Retirement, Discipline, and Removal of Justices and Judges Section "§ 33-38-13-8 Age; Temporary Judicial Duties" accessed Jan. 19, 2022
  21. LegiScan.com "Indiana Senate Bill 463" accessed Jan. 19, 2022
  22. Chapter 602: Judicial Branch "602.1610 Mandatory retirement" accessed Jan. 19, 2022
  23. 23.0 23.1 Chapter 20: Courts Article 26: Retirement System For Justices And Judges, "Statute: 20-2608(a)" accessed Jan 19, 2022
  24. 24.0 24.1 Louisiana Constitution Art. V, Sec. 23
  25. Maryland Constitution Art. IV, Sec. 3
  26. Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "Chapter III: Judiciary Power - Art. XCVII" accessed Jan. 19, 2022
  27. 27.0 27.1 Michigan Constitution Art. VI, Sec. 19
  28. 28.0 28.1 Minnesota Statutes, "Statute: 490.121(21d) & 490.125," accessed Jan 19, 2022
  29. 29.0 29.1 Missouri Constitution Art. V, Sec. 26
  30. 30.0 30.1 Missouri Revised Statutes, "Statute: 479.020(7)," accessed Jan. 19, 2022
  31. New Hampshire Constitution Art. 78
  32. New Jersey Constitution Art. XI, Sec. IV
  33. LegiScan "New Jersey Senate Bill 4098" accessed Jan. 19, 2022
  34. New York Constitution Art. VI, Sec. 25
  35. 35.0 35.1 ncga.state.nc.us, "Article 1B: Age Limits for Service as Justice or Judge."
  36. North Dakota Century Code "Chapter 27-17: Retirement of Judges" accessed Jan 19, 2022
  37. North Dakota Century Code "Chapter 27-17: Retirement of Judges" accessed Jan 19, 2022
  38. 38.0 38.1 Ohio Constitution Art. IV, Sec. 6
  39. Oklahoma Constitution Art. VII, Sec. 11
  40. 40.0 40.1 Oregon Constitution Art. VII, Sec. 1a
  41. 41.0 41.1 Pennsylvania Constitution Art. V, Sec. 16
  42. American Judicature Society, "Methods of Judicial Selection: Rhode Island," archived October 6, 2014
  43. 43.0 43.1 South Carolina Legislature, "Title 9 - Retirement Systems"
  44. 44.0 44.1 South Dakota Legislature, "Statute: 16-1-4.1" accessed Jan. 21, 2022
  45. 45.0 45.1 Texas Constitution Art. 5, Sec. 1-a
  46. Texas Lawyer, "Chief Justice’s Election Bid Puts Spotlight on Texas’ Mandatory Judicial Retirement," Jan. 6, 2020
  47. Utah State Legislature, "Statute: 49-18-701: Judges' mandatory retirement age." accessed Jan. 21, 2022
  48. 48.0 48.1 Vermont State Legislature, "Statute: 4-609 - Judicial retirement" accessed Jan. 21, 2022
  49. 49.0 49.1 Virginia State Law "§ 51.1-305. Service retirement generally (B1)" accessed Jan. 21, 2022
  50. 50.0 50.1 Art. IV, Sec. 3.28a.29
  51. Wisconsin Blue Book 2005-2006
  52. Wyoming Constitution, Art. V, Sec. 5
  53. Due to Hawaii's double majority requirements, the amount of total votes in the overall election are used to calculate the percent of "yes" and "no" votes. This may result in the percents for the "yes" and "no" votes adding up to less than 100 percent.
  54. VoteTexas.gov, "Who, What, Where, When, How," accessed February 27, 2023
  55. Texas Secretary of State, “Request for Voter Registration Applications,” accessed February 27, 2023
  56. Texas Secretary of State, “Voter Registration,” accessed February 27, 2023
  57. Texas Constitution and Statutes, “Election Code,” accessed February 23, 2023
  58. The Texas Tribune, “Texas officials flag tens of thousands of voters for citizenship checks,” January 25, 2019
  59. The New York Times, “Federal Judge Halts ‘Ham-Handed’ Texas Voter Purge,” February 28, 2019
  60. The New York Times, “Texas Ends Review That Questioned Citizenship of Almost 100,000 Voters,” April 26, 2019
  61. Texas Secretary of State, “Secretary Whitley Announces Settlement In Litigation On Voter Registration List Maintenance Activity,” April 26, 2019
  62. 62.0 62.1 62.2 62.3 62.4 Texas Secretary of State, "Required Identification for Voting in Person," accessed February 27, 2023 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "tvid" defined multiple times with different content