Currently, Ohio law prohibits any candidate whose age is more than 70 to seek election to a position of judge. Someone elected at age 70 would be age 76 by the end of his or her term. Issue 1 proposes to add five years to the mandatory retirement age and if Issue 1 passes, judges may seek election up to age 75. And, someone elected at age 75, who completes a full term of 6 years, will be age 81 by the end of his or her term.
The answer to the question, “How old is too old?” is different for each individual. The current law allows a judge to serve until age 76, and for some judges, that may be an age well past his or her capacity to do a competent job. But, many judges at age 76 are full of vitality, and many at age 81 would make great judges.
I’m voting “Yes” for Issue 1, because, the reality is that in Ohio judges are elected to their positions by the voting public. If there is a reason to believe a judge is serving incompetently, or a reason to believe that a judge should not be reelected, then this decision should be revealed and discussed as part of the election process. What is needed is a means to better inform the public about the work of judges, so the public can make more educated choices.
The bigger question that Issue 1 raises is: Does our curent system of choosing judges make sense? Should the selection of judges be determined by an uninformed and incompetent public? In my view, we need to brainstorm to find a better system. As it is, the public has little information with which to evaluate judges or candidates seeking to be elected to the position of judge. We need a system that will give the public better information — maybe a system of peer review, or a system of citizen nonpartisan panels empowered to make evaluations. We need to look at the big picture and brainstorm meaningful systemic change that will improve the quality of our judges, regardless of age.
The Ohio State Bar Association also has endorsed the Issue 1. In a released statement, the group’s president, Carol Seubert Marx, said “The times have changed, life expectancy has changed and expectations of life in the workforce have changed. Extending the age limit to 75 would allow for more experienced judges to stay on the bench and benefit the judiciary.”
She added, “So what happens if Issue 1 fails? Up to 10 percent of Ohio’s judges could be forced to retire in the next six years resulting in the loss of tremendous judicial experience in Ohio’s courtrooms.”
But opponents of Issue 1 question the value of extending the age limit.
The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association is urging a “no” vote on the issue, saying that the wording of it could allow judges to serve until they are 82 years old or older.
“The provision would allow for judges serving into their eighties,” John Murphy, executive director of the prosecutors association, said in a released statement. “While some senior judges are valued and effective, it is not the case with all. The potential for limits to an elderly judge’s schedule and capacity is not good for an active courtroom.”
He added, “Ohio prosecutors think the current age limit is appropriate and should be retained, even if it keeps some capable, experienced candidates off the bench. In our experience, many prosecutors have practiced before older judges who should not have been serving.”
The Democratic Party, which also opposes, questioned the politics behind the move.
According to a released statement from the group’s executive committee, “This extension would increase the length of service for individuals already entrenched on the bench. Moreover, State Issue 1 is likely to perpetuate a 6-to-1 Republican imbalance on the Ohio Supreme Court and similar imbalances on lower courts.”
I voted “Yes” on 1 myself, though I definitely do understand the concerns that some have with Rushpubliscum judges sitting forever on the bench. I believe that a lot of our jurists probably have more to offer, and a lot of experience, so setting an age seems arbitrary to me.