3 ms·
In PA we have a ballot question that reads, "Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges, and magister
by filoeleven 10y ago
In PA we have a ballot question that reads,
"Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges, and magisterial district judges be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years?"
If you think that forcing judges to retire at a certain age is a good idea, you will be inclined to vote "yes". The problem is that PA already has mandatory retirement for judges, only at age 70. So the way that the question is phrased is very misleading, and could easily lead to PA raising the retirement age for judges from 70 to 75 despite voter intent to the contrary.
- hga 10y agoAs I understand it, this is the intent of the wording after a couple of previous, clearly worded ballot questions properly went down in flames at the hand of the voters. Also read there's a particular Supreme Court judge for whom this latest effort was made.
- filoeleven 10y agoI can't speak to the particular judge being the driving force behind it, but you are spot-on about the wording. In the primary, the question was worded this way: "Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges and justices of the peace (known as magisterial district judges) be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years, instead of the current requirement that they be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 70?"
- Houshalter 10y agoThat's not misleading, it's a straight up lie. It doesn't say that it would change previous laws. So if there is an existing law that says judges must retire at 70, nothing there says it will be repealed.
- wingerlang 10y agoBut it says "amended".