Maintaining High Performance and Efficiency on the Bench Demands a Firm Retirement Standard, Not Political Convenience.
New Hampshire voters have already spoken, rejecting a constitutional amendment to raise the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75. Yet, despite this direct public feedback, this costly and ill-advised proposal, CACR9, is back on the legislative docket.
While Senator Avard and House Judiciary Chair, retired Justice Lynn, championed this measure, its reintroduction risks disregarding the will of New Hampshire residents. Notably, Senator Avard voted against this very measure in 2023.This raises immediate, critical questions: What compelling circumstances have changed to warrant this shift? And who benefits, the public, or the convenience of political leadership?
My concern is not about age bias. It is rooted in the demands of the judicial role and the public’s right to a fully functioning, timely, and high-performing court system.
The Performance Imperative
Serving on the bench is one of the most mentally and physically rigorous jobs in public service. The cognitive burden of heavy caseloads, complex legal analysis, and rapid decision-making requires sustained high levels of focus and stamina. The system depends on judges who can maintain this peak performance daily.
As a matter of biological reality, not moral judgment, cognitive speed, resilience to stress, and physical stamina decline as individuals age. These are human conditions.
In a court system already burdened by delays, staff shortages, and increasing complexity, the risk of reduced capacity at the bench has serious consequences. Extending the mandatory retirement age to 75 significantly increases the likelihood that our courts will face more interruptions, medical leaves, and administrative delays.
The Cost of Delay
When judicial availability declines, cases stall. When decisions take months instead of weeks, justice is effectively denied, a burden that falls hardest on ordinary citizens seeking timely resolution, particularly unrepresented and lower-income litigants.
Mandatory retirement at 70 is a necessary, non-personal standard designed to protect the public’s interest in sustained judicial fitness and continuous service. It provides a clear transition point, preventing prolonged uncertainty for litigants when a judge experiences health limitations or requires long-term leave.
The Real Solution
Instead of lengthening the tenure of the current bench, New Hampshire should be focused on actively refreshing and strengthening the judiciary. We need to actively recruit new judicial candidates, including experienced and diverse attorneys who can bring new perspectives and modern training to the bench.
I urge the legislature to reconsider its sponsorship of CACR9. The focus must be on maintaining a prompt and efficient judicial system that serves the people of New Hampshire, not on prioritizing the preferences of those currently in power.
