Pennsylvania Judicial Retirement Age Amendment (2016)

Pennsylvania Constitutional Amendment

Election date
November 8, 2016
Topic
State judiciary
Status
a Approved
Type
Constitutional amendment| Origin
State legislature

* * *

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Overview
* 3 Text of measure
* 3.1 Ballot title
* 3.2 Ballot summary
* 3.3 Constitutional changes
* 4 Background
* 5 Support
* 5.1 Supporters
* 5.1.1 Officials
* 5.1.2 Former officials
* 5.1.3 Organizations
* 5.2 Arguments
* 6 Opposition
* 6.1 Opponents
* 6.2 Arguments
* 7 Campaign finance
* 7.1 Support
* 8 Media editorials
* 8.1 Support
* 8.2 Opposition
* 9 Timeline
* 9.1 Republican litigation
* 9.2 Election delay
* 9.3 Counter litigation
* 9.4 April election results
* 9.5 Democrat litigation
* 9.6 Castille and Zappala litigation
* 10 Polls
* 11 Path to the ballot
* 11.1 House vote
* 11.2 Senate vote
* 12 State profile
* 12.1 Presidential voting pattern
* 12.1.1 Pivot Counties (2016)
* 12.1.2 Pivot Counties (2020)
* 13 Recent news
* 14 Related measures
* 15 See also
* 16 External links
* 17 Footnotes

2016 measures

April 26
Proposed Constitutional Amendment 2 a
November 8
Judicial Retirement Age Amendment a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Pennsylvania Judicial Retirement Age Amendment was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Pennsylvania as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. It was approved.

| A "yes" vote supported changing the mandatory retirement age from 70 to 75 for Supreme Court justices, judges, and justices of the peace.

|

| A "no" vote opposed this amendment to change the mandatory retirement age from 70 to 75 for Supreme Court justices, judges, and justices of the peace.

|

The measure increased the state's mandatory judicial retirement age from 70 to 75.[1]

## Election results[edit]

Constitutional Amendment

Result| Votes| Percentage
a Yes|  2,541,601|  51.09%
No| 2,432,670| 48.91%

Election results from Pennsylvania Department of State

## Overview[edit]

See also: Timeline of the Pennsylvania Judicial Retirement Age Amendment

The Pennsylvania Legislature moved the Judicial Retirement Age Amendment from the April 26, 2016, ballot to the November 8, 2016, ballot, just 15 days before the April 26 election. The measure underwent a number of lawsuits, including by Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats, and retired Supreme Court justices Ronald Castille and Stephen Zappala, Sr.

Of Pennsylvania's six neighboring states, Maryland, Ohio, New Jersey, and New York all have judicial retirement ages of 70. Delaware and West Virginia have no retirement age requirements for judges.

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot title[edit]

The ballot question read:[2]

“  | AMENDING THE MANDATORY JUDICIAL RETIREMENT AGE

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?[3]

| ”

|
|

### Ballot summary[edit]

The following was the "Plain English Statement of the Office of Attorney General:"[4]

“  | The purpose of the ballot question is to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to require that justices, 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.

Presently, the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that justices, judges and justices of the peace be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 70 years. Justices of the peace are currently referred to as magisterial district judges.

If the ballot question were to be approved, justices, judges and magisterial district judges would be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years rather than the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 70 years.

This amendment to the mandatory retirement age would be applicable to all judges and justices in the Commonwealth, including the justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, judges of the Commonwealth Court, Superior Court, county courts of common pleas, community courts, municipal courts in the City of Philadelphia, and magisterial district judges.

The ballot question is limited in that it would not amend any other provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution related to the qualification, election, tenure, or compensation of the justices, judges or magisterial district judges.

The effect of the ballot question would be to allow all justices, judges, and magisterial district judges to remain in office until the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years. This would permit all justices, judges, and magisterial district judges to serve an additional five years beyond the current required retirement age.[3]

| ”

|
|

### Constitutional changes[edit]

See also: Article V, Pennsylvania Constitution

The measure amended Section 16(b) of Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The following ~~struck-through~~ text was deleted and the underlined text was added:[1]

(b) Justices, judges and justices of the peace shall be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of ~~70~~ 75 years. Former and retired justices, judges and justices of the peace shall receive such compensation as shall be provided by law. Except as provided by law, no salary, retirement benefit or other compensation, present or deferred, shall be paid to any justice, judge or justice of the peace who, under section 18 or under Article VI, is suspended, removed or barred from holding judicial office for conviction of a felony or misconduct in office or conduct which prejudices the proper administration of justice or brings the judicial office into disrepute.[3]

## Background[edit]

The measure affected 19 of Pennsylvania's 1,027 state judges, or 1.9 percent of them, who turned 70 in 2016.[5] Among them were Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices Thomas Saylor and Max Baer, Lackawanna County Judge Thomas J. Munley, and Luzerne County Judge Thomas F. Burke, Jr..[6] Judge Burke was appointed in 1998 and retained twice. He turned 70 in 2016 and would have been forced to retire at the end of 2016 should the referendum have failed. Burke, who would have had to leave with four years remaining in his term without the approval of the amendment, stated, "If given the opportunity by the voters, I would very much like to continue as a full-time judge going into next year."[7]

## Support[edit]

Judicial Excellence Matters, a political action committee, registered to support the amendment.[8]

### Supporters[edit]

#### Officials[edit]

The following legislators sponsored the amendment:[9]

* Rep. Kate Harper (R-61)
* Rep. Thomas R. Caltagirone (D-127)
* Rep. Bryan Barbin (D-71)
* Rep. Karen Boback (R-117)
* Rep. Mike Carroll (D-118)
* Rep. Mark B. Cohen (D-202)
* Rep. Russ Diamond (R-102)
* Rep. Robert Freeman (D-136)
* Rep. Mark M. Gillen (R-128)
* Rep. Robert W. Godshall (R-53)
* Rep. Neal P. Goodman (D-123)
* Rep. Glen R. Grell (R-87)
* Rep. Seth M. Grove (R-196)
* Rep. Tim Krieger (R-57)
* Rep. Mark Longietti (D-7)
* Rep. Thomas P. Murt (R-152)
* Rep. Scott A. Petri (R-178)
* Rep. Michael H. Schlossberg (D-132)
* Rep. Katharine M. Watson (R-144)
* Rep. Jaret Gibbons (D-10)
* Rep. Tina M. Davis (D-141)

#### Former officials[edit]

* Judge Thomas A. Wallitsch, Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas[10]

#### Organizations[edit]

* Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts[6]
* Pennsylvania Bar Association[11]

### Arguments[edit]

William H. Pugh, President of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, said in an editorial:[11]

“  | [T]he justice system will benefit from the experience and wisdom of long-serving judges, the average life expectancy has lengthened since the time the current mandatory retirement age was adopted, and many federal judges sit and perform at a high level well beyond the age of 70.

In The Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton argued in favor of lifetime judicial appointments. Hamilton made two arguments that justify increasing the mandatory retirement age: the length of time it takes to master the law and that a temporary appointment will inhibit the best from becoming a judge. Why retire a judge who has gained significant and valuable experience? As Pennsylvania's founder, William Penn, observed, "Experience is a safe guide."[3]

| ”

|
|

Other arguments in support of the measure included:

* Rep. Kate Harper (R-61), chief sponsor of the amendment, said, "Being a judge is one of those jobs where age and experience generally turn into wisdom and that's really good in a judge and that leads to a commonwealth with a better judicial system where justice is handed out more often and that's' a good thing."[12]
* Sen. Pat Vance (R-31) contended, "Seventy is the new 50. People are now working longer."[13]
* Sen. Lisa Baker (R-20), argued, "As a general proposition, people are living longer, and many are choosing to extend their professional working lives. ... There is a growing belief that an age limit established long ago is too low by today’s standards, and is arbitrarily depriving our courts of some experienced, thoughtful and highly capable judges. It seems a good time and an appropriate matter for the voters to decide."[6]
* Lynn Marks, Executive Director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, stated, "Increased life expectancy and medical advances have allowed people to remain active and productive for longer than ever before. ... Age-related deterioration is more biological. It’s not chronological. It impacts everyone differently."[6]

## Opposition[edit]

### Opponents[edit]

* State Sen. Anthony Williams (D-8)[6]

### Arguments[edit]

* Rep. Stephen Bloom (R-199) argued, "I am concerned that the constitutional checks and balances designed to protect our citizens from the excesses that inevitably arise when any one branch of government gets too powerful have become skewed in favor of the judicial branch, so I am reluctant to cede any additional privileges and powers to the courts."[12]
* George Aul of Belle Vernon, Pennsylvania, wrote a letter to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. He contended, "While our aging population shows vitality and vigor, we should not allow a small special interest group to alter a document written for the common good of all Pennsylvanians. Notwithstanding that the judiciary is a necessary part of society, we cannot permit, in many cases, career politicians to grab a stronger hold by forcing an issue on the electorate. Not only will these people be able to stay in their jobs for five more years but they will also be able to collect five more years of income resulting in higher state retirement pay."[14]
* Sen. Anthony Williams (D-8) said, "Time cements prejudices, as has been underscored with the complicit, widespread practice of sharing misogynistic, homophobic and racist emails to scores of other attorneys, prosecutors and publicly elected officials. ... Pennsylvania is changing and we must make sure qualified legal minds — minds that truly believe justice is blind — have the opportunity to mete out proper justice. Giving judges another five years would be the opposite of this idea."[6]
* Rep. Kate Anne Klunk (R-169) argued, "Increasing the age, I think, cedes more additional power to the courts than they need at this time."[15]

## Campaign finance[edit]

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Pennsylvania ballot measures
Total campaign contributions:

Support: | $49,025.00
Opposition: | $0.00

As of February 1, 2017, one ballot question committee, Judicial Excellence Matters, registered to support the Judicial Retirement Age Amendment.[16]

### Support[edit]

The following ballot question committee registered to support the amendment as of February 1, 2017. The chart below shows contributions and expenditures current as of February 1, 2017.[16]

Committee  | Amount raised  | Amount spent

|
|

Judicial Excellence Matters  | $49,025.00  | $49,025.00
Total | $49,025.00 | $49,025.00

The following were the top five donors to Judicial Excellence Matters as of February 1, 2017:[16]

Donor  | Amount

|

Western Pennsylvania Laborers PAC | $5,000.00
Burns & White PAC | $3,000.00
Dickie, McCamry & Chilcote | $2,500.00
Cohen & Grigsby PAC | $1,000.00
Frank, Gale, Baile, Marcko & Pocrass PAC | $1,000.00

## Media editorials[edit]

### Support[edit]

* The Daily Item said:[17]

“  | Indeed, if the mandatory retirement age for U.S. Supreme Court judges was 70 or 75, we would no longer have Ruth Bader Ginsburg, age 83; Anthony Kennedy, 80, or Stephen Breyer, 78, serving on the highest court in this country.[3] | ”

|
|

### Opposition[edit]

* The Chambersburg Public Opinion said:[18]

“  | Our first inclination is to say yes, of course. It's time to end the age discrimination of forced retirement. But our second inclination, upon further reflection, is to say no, not now; for Pennsylvania, proposing to raise the mandatory retirement age for judges is getting the cart before the horse.

The credibility of Pennsylvania’s appellate courts is at an all-time low, in the wake of porngate/Chief Justice J. Michael Eakin’s resignation, the forced retirement of Justice Seamus McCaffery in the aforementioned scandal, and the removal, disbarrment and conviction of Justice Joan Orie Melvin on campaign corruption charges. Stir in plenty of internal feuding too.

Since it’s so difficult for voters to separate the sheep from the goats among state judicial candidates, extending the retirement age could prolong the agony by keeping at least some bad judges on the bench longer.[3]

| ”

|
|

* Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said:[19]

“  | The GOP-controlled Legislature’s actions clearly were intended to boost the odds of passage — and perhaps to influence the makeup of the Supreme Court, which has five Democrats and two Republicans now. Without a change in retirement age, it will lose one of the Republicans, Chief Justice Thomas Saylor, at the end of the year. A Democrat, Justice Max Baer, turns 70 next year.

It turns out the Legislature had good reason to worry about the initial — honest — question going down to defeat. Some counties didn’t have time to remove the question from the primary ballot. Although the results didn’t count, the measure failed among the 2.4 million people who voted on it.

Upon reaching the mandatory retirement age, jurists still have the opportunity to serve their communities as senior judges who are paid by the day. If judges want people to respect the laws, they must do so, too. The mandatory retirement age is 70. Let them live with it. The Post-Gazette urges a “No” vote on the proposal to raise judges’ mandatory retirement age to 75 from 70.[3]

| ”

|
|

* Philadelphia Daily News said:[20]

“  | We agree with those who filed the suits challenging the wording of the ballot question. We believe it is deceitful - and deliberately so, designed to bamboozle voters into thinking they are voting on a minor issue that simply codifies existing law instead of adding five years to a judge's term. ...

It's hard to have an informed electorate when we don't give them the information they need.

On that grounds alone, we urge voters to vote "No" on the ballot question. We shouldn't reward the shenanigans that have marked the path of this question through the legislature and onto the ballot.

We also oppose it on other grounds. Our judiciary hasn't exactly covered itself in glory in recent years. ...

But we also know there is no shortage of smart lawyers who want to be judges. Being on the bench is a desirable job, and the lure is strong.[3]

| ”

|
|

* The Philadelphia Inquirer said:[21]

“  | The argument to extend the retirement age isn't compelling. Proponents say unless it is raised from 70 to 75, 19 judicial vacancies will be created by this year's end, including Saylor's post. It's hard to believe that in all of Pennsylvania there are not 19 men and women of good character, temperament, and experience who could replace the retirees. Pennsylvanians should vote NO on the question.[3] | ”

|
|

* The Scranton Times-Tribune said:[22]

“  | Legislators turned the straightforward question about the retirement age into a question of political advantage. Republicans, alarmed by a recent trend of Democratic victories in state appellate court races, tried to stem that tide by raising the retirement age and creating fewer vacancies. Democrats agitated for the opposite.

The Supreme Court invalidated the question in the spring primary. Then, the courts approved a new question that is deceptive...[3]

| ”

|
|

## Timeline[edit]

### Republican litigation[edit]

On March 6, 2016, Pennsylvania Senate Republicans filed a legal challenge questioning the wording of the ballot measure. The Pennsylvania Attorney General requested dismissal, citing an excessive amount of time taken to file the litigation. Furthermore, the attorney general’s office claimed changing the language would be difficult with the April election less than two months away.[23]

Republicans argued that the 69-word ballot question included confusing wording regarding the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and magisterial district judges, as well as an unclear description of the mandatory retirement age. Senate Republicans suggested the following 35-word version:[23][24]

“  | Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices, judges and justices of the peace be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years.[3] | ”

|
|

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ request to reword the ballot question.[25][26]

### Election delay[edit]

On April 5, 2016, the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee voted 16 to 11 for a resolution that would postpone the measure until the general election in November.[27] The following day, the House approved of HR 783 that requested the secretary of state to ignore votes on the measure on election day, April 26, 2016.[28]

The Pennsylvania Senate approved a similar resolution, SR 321, on April 11, 2016, by a vote of 32-17. This motion delayed the vote on the amendment to November 8, 2016. Any votes cast for the measure on April 26, 2016, were disregarded.[29]

The new resolutions also changed the ballot language. The original ballot question designed for April, the one Republicans argued for in court, and the one that was ultimately approved for the November ballot were as follows:

Language for April amendment | Language that Republicans argued for | Language for November ballot

|
|

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? | Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices, judges and justices of the peace be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years? | 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?

### Counter litigation[edit]

On April 14, 2016, Senators Daylin Leach (D-17), Jay Costa (D-43), and Christine Tartaglione (D-2) filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Pedro Cortes and Senators Joe Scarnati (R-25) and Jake Corman (R-34), asking the Commonwealth Court to continue with the referendum vote on April 26, 2016. The legal challenge said the vote postponement was unconstitutional on grounds that the pair of resolutions passed by the Pennsylvania House and Senate were not presented to Gov. Tom Wolf (D) as constitutionally required. The counter lawsuit asked the court to order Secretary of State Cortes to "accept, count, and verify" the votes cast for the measure on April 26.[30]

Commonwealth Court Judge Kevin Brobson heard arguments on April 19, 2016, and ruled the next day that votes cast on the measure on April 26, 2016, would not count.[31][32] Judge Brobson said, "There are clearly burdens and consequences that result from the unfortunate timing of the General Assembly’s action. ... Such burdens and consequences that flow from the constitutional actions of any branch of government, however, are not ‘harms’ that can be considered, let alone abated, by enjoining the exercise of a constitutional prerogative.[32]

### April election results[edit]

Although the Pennsylvania Legislature moved the amendment to the November 8, 2016, ballot, many voters still saw it as an item on their ballots during the primary election in April and casted votes on it. The Pennsylvania Secretary of State was instructed to not certify these results, so they had no legally binding effect. But the results were counted up, providing a non-random sample of over 2.3 million voters. According to the sample, voters were very evenly split on the proposal, with "no" votes outnumbering "yes" votes by a margin of just under 2 percent.

Pennsylvania Amendment 1 (April 2016)

Result| Votes| Percentage
tc No| 1,220,587| 50.99%
Yes|  1,172,999|  49.01%

Election results via: Pennsylvania Department of State

The state spent about $1.3 million advertising the constitutional amendments for the election on April 26, 2016. This advertising had to be repeated for the amendment before the general election in November.[28]

### Democrat litigation[edit]

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court heard arguments on June 9, 2016, on litigation filed by Senate Democrats challenging the legality of the delayed vote. Democrats argued that the measure and delay were political in nature, since Republican Chief Justice Thomas Saylor turned 70 in 2016. Sen. Daylin Leach (D-17) argued, "The entire goal was to change the language so they can get the ballot question passed. ... They want the proposal to pass — and they want it to pass because they want a Republican chief justice for the next five years.[33]

On July 6, 2016, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled against the Democratic plaintiffs. The court decided that the General Assembly did not violate the Pennsylvania Constitution by passing a concurrent resolution to delay the vote on the ballot measure.[34]

### Castille and Zappala litigation[edit]

Retired Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices Ronald Castille and Stephen Zappala, Sr. filed litigation in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court on July 21, 2016. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took up the case due to the content matter.[35] Secretary of State Pedro Cortes commented that the litigation was filed too late. The two argued that the ballot wording did not mention that a mandatory retirement age of 70 was already in place. Lawyer Dick Sprague wrote in the challenge, arguing, “In a democracy, it is indisputable that voters are required to have the information necessary to make the best decisions on matters of critical importance such as a constitutional amendment regarding the retirement age of state judicial officers.”[36]

On September 2, 2016, the court voted in a three-to-three decision, which meant the amendment would remain on the November ballot.[37] Justices Castille and Zappala filed a motion to have their case heard in the Commonwealth Court, where they initially filed their litigation.[38] The Supreme Court, in a four-to-two decision, rejected the plaintiffs' request to have the case heard in a lower court.[39]

Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, Justices Castille and Zappala, along with attorney Richard A. Sprague, filed in the Commonwealth Court on September 19, 2016.[40] They said the higher court's ruling did not necessarily preclude them from seeking a lower court ruling.[41] On October 6, 2016, President Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt dismissed the appeal and ending the case.[42]

On October 27, 2016, Castille, Zappala, and Sprague asked the U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania to prevent the amendment from being counted on November 8. Their filing stated, "This case involves a demonstrably misleading ballot question and infringement of the inalienable right of Pennsylvania citizens to approve amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution."[43] Judge Robert David Mariani dismissed the case on December 9, 2016, stating that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing.[44]

## Polls[edit]

See also: 2016 ballot measure polls

The Franklin & Marshall College Poll surveyed 813 registered voters between September 28 and October 2, 2016. Respondents were randomly divided into three clusters, with each cluster receiving different wording regarding the judicial retirement age amendment.[45]

The first cluster received the wording that appeared on the November 8, 2016, ballot:

“  | [Question 1] 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?[3] | ”

|
|

Of the respondents in the first cluster, 64 percent supported, 28 percent opposed, and seven percent were undecided on the measure.

The second cluster received the wording that was to be found on the April 26, 2016, primary ballot:

“  | [Question 2] 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?[3] | ”

|
|

Of the respondents in the second cluster, 45 percent supported, 47 percent opposed, and seven percent were undecided on the measure.

The third cluster received an alternative wording for the amendment:

“  | [Question 3]The Pennsylvania Constitution currently requires that justices of the Supreme Court, judges, and magisterial district judges retire on the last day of the calendar year they turn 70 years of age. Should the state Constitution be amended to allow these judges to serve in office until they are 75 years of age?[3] | ”

|
|

Of the respondents in the third cluster, 37 percent supported, 61 percent opposed, and two percent were undecided on the measure.

Pennsylvania Judicial Retirement Age Amendment (2016)

Poll | Support | Oppose| Undecided
Franklin & Marshall College
Question 1
9/28/2016 - 10/02/2016 | 64.0%| 28.0%| 7.0%
Franklin & Marshall College
Question 2
9/28/2016 - 10/02/2016 | 45.0%| 47.0%| 7.0%
Franklin & Marshall College
Question 3
9/28/2016 - 10/02/2016 | 37.0%| 61.0%| 2.0%
AVERAGES|  48.67%|  45.33%|  5.33%
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Amending the Pennsylvania Constitution

A simple majority vote in both chambers of the Pennsylvania Legislature during two successive legislative sessions was required to refer this amendment to the ballot.

During the 2013-2014 legislative session, the legislature approved the amendment, then titled House Bill 79, for the first time. On June 28, 2013, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives approved the measure, with 157 votes in favor and 44 against.[46] On October 15, 2013, the Pennsylvania Senate passed the amendment, with 44 votes in favor and six against.[47]

The amendment was brought up for a second time, during the 2015-2016 legislative session, as House Bill 90. On February 10, 2015, the House approved the amendment for a second time.[48]

The bill was given second consideration but did not proceed to the 2015 ballot. However, it was given third consideration on November 16, 2015, and the Senate approved the measure by a 36-to-13 vote, referring it to the 2016 ballot.[49][50]

### House vote[edit]

June 28, 2013

Pennsylvania HB 79 House Vote

Result| Votes| Percentage
a Yes|  157|  78.11%
No| 44| 21.89%

February 10, 2015

Pennsylvania HB 90 House Vote

Result| Votes| Percentage
a Yes|  154|  77.78%
No| 44| 22.22%

### Senate vote[edit]

October 15, 2013

Pennsylvania HB 79 Senate Vote

Result| Votes| Percentage
a Yes|  44|  88.00%
No| 6| 12.00%

November 16, 2015

Pennsylvania HB 90 Senate Vote

Result| Votes| Percentage
a Yes|  36|  73.47%
No| 13| 26.53%

## State profile[edit]

Demographic data for Pennsylvania

| Pennsylvania| U.S.
Total population:| 12,791,904| 316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):| 44,743| 3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:| 81.6%| 73.6%
Black/African American:| 11%| 12.6%
Asian:| 3.1%| 5.1%
Native American:| 0.2%| 0.8%
Pacific Islander:| 0%| 0.2%
Two or more:| 2.1%| 3%
Hispanic/Latino:| 6.4%| 17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:| 89.2%| 86.7%
College graduation rate:| 28.6%| 29.8%
Income
Median household income:| $53,599| $53,889
Persons below poverty level:| 15.9%| 11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015)
Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Pennsylvania.

* * *

**Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

### Presidential voting pattern[edit]

See also: Presidential voting trends in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania voted for the Democratic candidate in five out of the seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

#### Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, three are located in Pennsylvania, accounting for 1.46 percent of the total pivot counties.[51]

#### Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Pennsylvania had one Retained Pivot County and two Boomerang Pivot Counties, accounting for 0.55 and 8.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.

More Pennsylvania coverage on Ballotpedia

* Elections in Pennsylvania
* United States congressional delegations from Pennsylvania
* Public policy in Pennsylvania
* Endorsers in Pennsylvania
* Pennsylvania fact checks
* More...

## Recent news[edit]

This section links to a Google news search for the term "Pennsylvania + judicial + retirement + age + ballot"

Pennsylvania Judicial Retirement Age News Feed

## Related measures[edit]

State judiciary measures on the ballot in 2016

State| Measures
Alabama| Alabama Qualifying Age for Pickens County Judges, Amendment 9 d

## See also[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* Pennsylvania 2016 ballot measures
* 2016 ballot measures
* Pennsylvania Legislature
* State judiciary on the ballot

## External links[edit]

* House Bill 90
* Public Notice of Constitutional Amendment

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Pennsylvania Legislature, "House Bill 90," accessed February 11, 2015
2. ↑ Pennsylvania State Legislature, "Senate Resolution 321 (2016)," accessed March 12, 2016
3. ↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 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 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 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 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 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 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
4. ↑ Pennsylvania Department of State, "Public Notice," accessed October 7, 2016
5. ↑ The Pottstown Mercury, "Ballot questions await Pa. voters on Nov. 8," October 9, 2016
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Times-Tribune, "Judges’ retirement age on Pa. primary ballot," April 3, 2016
7. ↑ Citizens Voice, "Judge referendum has local support," April 3, 2016
8. ↑ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Attorneys donating to PAC created to support raising judges’ retirement age," November 3, 2016
9. ↑ Pennsylvania Legislature, "House Bill 90 History," accessed February 11, 2015
10. ↑ The Morning Call, "Judge Thomas A. Wallitsch: Judges should be able to serve until age 75," November 4, 2016
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Lebanon Daily News, "Voters can extend mandatory retirement," April 3, 2016
12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 The Patriot News, "Should 75 be the new 70 for when judges lose their jobs? Pa. House wants voters to decide," February 10, 2015
13. ↑ York Dispatch, "Pennsylvania voters to decide judge retirement age," November 18, 2015
14. ↑ Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, "Maintain judicial retirement age," March 29, 2016
15. ↑ York Daily Record, "A proposal to increase the mandatory retirement age to 75 will be on the ballot during Pennsylvania's primary on April 26," April 5, 2016
16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 Pennsylvania Department of State, "Judicial Excellence Matters," accessed February 1, 2017
17. ↑ The Daily Item, "Today's Editorial: Vote 'yes' on judicial retirement age question," November 3, 2016
18. ↑ Chambersburg Public Opinion, "Ballot proposal gets the cart before the horse," April 8, 2016
19. ↑ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Vote ‘No’ on judges: In plain language — keep their retirement age at 70," October 28, 2016
20. ↑ Philadelphia Daily News, "DN editorial: Vote 'No' on question to raise judges' retirement age, "October 10, 2016
21. ↑ The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Inquirer Editorial: Vote 'no' on misleading ballot question raising judges' retirement age," October 12, 2016
22. ↑ The Scranton Times-Tribune, "‘No’ on court referendum," October 29, 2016
23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 The Republic, "Pennsylvania officials are battling over the wording of a ballot question that lets voters decide whether to raise the mandatory retirement age of judges," March 11, 2016
24. ↑ Indiana Gazette, "A look at a battle over wording in ballot question on judges," March 12, 2016
25. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Court won't alter judge retirement age amendment language," March 23, 2016
26. ↑ The Republic, "Gov. Tom Wolf's office says it'll pull a question from the primary election ballot that asks voters whether to change the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75," April 11, 2016
27. ↑ New Jersey Herald, "Lawmakers move toward delay of judicial retirement age vote," April 6, 2016
28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Ballot question on Pennsylvania judges' retirement age may be delayed," April 7, 2016
29. ↑ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Vote on Pennsylvania judges' mandatory retirement age delayed until November," April 12, 2016
30. ↑ Indiana Gazette, "Delay in judge retirement referendum prompts lawsuit," April 17, 2016
31. ↑ Washington Times, "Judge mulls pulling ballot question from next week’s primary," April 19, 2016
32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 Washington Times, "Judge: judicial retirement age votes next week won’t count," April 20, 2016
33. ↑ The Morning Call, "Court battle looming on maximum age for PA judges," May 31, 2016
34. ↑ Legal Intelligencer, "Court sends judicial retirement question to November vote," July 6, 2016
35. ↑ Washington Times, "Supreme Court takes judge retirement age referendum case," July 27, 2016
36. ↑ The Morning Call, “Ex-justices sue over judge retirement age ballot question,” July 21, 2016
37. ↑ York Daily Record, "Pa. voters to decide judge retirement age," September 3, 2016
38. ↑ Philadelphia Media Network, "Supreme Court deadlock ends challenge to referendum on Pa. judge retirement age," September 2, 2016
39. ↑ Lancaster Online, "Justices again rule to put judicial retirement age on ballot," September 16, 2016
40. ↑ Lancaster Online, "Ex-justices sue again over judge retirement ballot question," September 19, 2016
41. ↑ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "New attempt to stop ballot question raising judges' retirement age," September 20, 2016
42. ↑ Philadelphia Media Network, "Court rejects attempt to revisit the judicial retirement referendum," October 6, 2016
43. ↑ The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Federal court asked to invalidate Pa. judge-retirement vote," October 27, 2016
44. ↑ Go Erie, "Challenge to judges' retirement age ballot question dismissed," December 13, 2016
45. ↑ The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Commentary: Wording matters on Pa.'s judicial ballot question," October 7, 2016
46. ↑ Pennsylvania Legislature, "House Roll Calls for HB 79," accessed February 11, 2015
47. ↑ Pennsylvania Legislature, "Senate Roll Calls for HB 79," accessed February 11, 2015
48. ↑ Pennsylvania Legislature, "House Roll Calls for HB 90," accessed February 11, 2015
49. ↑ Pennsylvania General Assembly, "Bill Information," accessed October 29, 2015
50. ↑ Pennsylvania General Assembly, "Senate Roll Calls," accessed November 30, 2015
51. ↑ The raw data for this study was provided by Dave Leip of Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.

v • e

2016 ballot measures

I&R States|

Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming

Non I&R States|

Alabama • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Kentucky • Maryland • Minnesota • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New York • North Carolina • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Texas • Vermont • Virginia • West Virginia • Wisconsin

Political topics|

Adult entertainment • Alcohol • Assisted death • Banking • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil and criminal trials • Civil rights • Constitutional language • County and municipal governance • Death penalty • Definition of a corporation • Education • Elections and campaigns • Energy • English language • Environment • Firearms • Food and agriculture • Forests and parks • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting and fishing • Labor and unions • Law enforcement • Lottery • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Prisons • Property • Redistricting • Religion • Salaries of government officials • School choice • State and local government budgets, spending and finance • State executive officials • State judiciary • State legislature • Suffrage • Taxes • Tort law • Transportation • Treatment of animals • Veterans • Wages and pay

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2016 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaigns • Campaign contributions • Campaign finance • Endorsements • Voter guides

v • e

Ballotpedia

About|

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Andrew Heath • Ashley Fleming • Hannah Nelson • Katy Noble
Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Policy: Jimmy McAllister • Molly Byrne • Jon Dunn • Annelise Reinwald • Emma Soukup
Content Strategy: Josh Altic
Tech: Matt Latourelle • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content|

Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora

v • e

State of Pennsylvania
Harrisburg (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy