Editorial: Age issue

Could forcing state judges to retire earlier be prompted more by politics than by any practical concerns?

A Kansas House bill that changes the mandatory retirement age for judges across Kansas seems like another legislative solution in search of a problem.

The fact that there’s no apparent problem with the current retirement rules makes it appear that state legislators are pursuing this change more for political reasons.

Kansas statutes currently require judges at all levels to retire at the age of 75 or, if they turn 75 in the middle of a term, at the end of that term. House Bill 2073 would lower that age and also create a double standard for lower court judges and those who serve on the Kansas Court of Appeals and the Kansas Supreme Court. The retirement age for lower-court judges would be lowered to 70, but the members of the state’s top two courts would be required to retire at 65. In all cases, judges would be allowed to finish the term during which they reach retirement age.

What is the problem and why the double standard? Why would a district judge be allowed to stay on the bench years longer than a member of a state appellate court?

One reason might be that state legislators aren’t particularly happy with the Kansas Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, which they view as too liberal. Last session, they succeeded in changing the way Court of Appeals judges are appointed and they may want to speed up the process of getting new judges on that court. Seven members of the 14-member court are 60 or older. Only one of those judges is over 65 and has a term that will end in time for his replacement to be named by Gov. Brownback if this bill is passed and allowed to take effect immediately. However, several other judges would be forced off the court in four years and would be replaced by the next governor.

At the very least, if this bill moves forward, it should apply only to judges who are elected or appointed after the legislation takes effect, not to sitting judges.

The larger question remains, however: What prompted this legislation and why now? People, including judges, are living longer and healthier lives. Sixty is the new 40. Why is a 75-year-old suddenly unqualified to serve as a judge?

When it’s not clear what problem a piece of legislation is trying to solve, it raises questions about what the real reason for the change may be. Why force the state’s Court of Appeals judges and Supreme Court justices to retire sooner than district judges? Is this anything other than a political power play? Legislators need to tell Kansans why they are raising this issue.