Louisiana Senate Bill SB86

Louisiana 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/3/25
• Refer: 4/3/25
• Refer: 4/14/25
• Report Pass: 4/29/25

Caption

Constitutional amendment to remove the mandatory retirement age for judges. (2/3 - CA13s1(A)) (1/1/27)

Summary

SB 86 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would remove Louisiana’s mandatory retirement age for judges. Under current Article V, Section 23 of the Louisiana Constitution, judges may not remain in office beyond their 70th birthday, though a judge who turns 70 during a term may finish that term. The bill would repeal that age-based limit and submit the question to voters at the statewide election on November 3, 2026, with the amendment taking effect January 1, 2027 if approved. The measure is narrowly focused on judicial service and does not otherwise change the structure of the judiciary, retirement benefits, or eligibility rules for judges. The engrossed version reflects committee changes that removed broader language about age discrimination in public office and public employment, leaving only the constitutional change affecting judges. Because it is a constitutional amendment, it requires voter approval and a two-thirds legislative threshold before being placed on the ballot.

Impact

If adopted, SB 86 would amend Article V, Section 23 of the Louisiana Constitution by eliminating the mandatory retirement age for judges. That would allow judges to continue serving beyond age 70, subject to any other constitutional or statutory qualifications, and would remove the current rule that automatically ends judicial service at that age except for completion of an existing term. The bill does not alter judicial retirement benefits or the retirement system itself, but it would change the age-based limit on holding judicial office and could affect judicial tenure, succession, and election/appointment timing for courts statewide.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill faced significant opposition in the Senate, as final passage failed on a 12-25 vote. The committee amendments indicate some support for narrowing the proposal to a single, more limited constitutional change, which may have been intended to make the measure more acceptable. Overall, the discussion reflected a legislative effort to revisit age limits for judges, but the floor vote shows the proposal did not command broad support at that stage.

Contention

The main point of contention is whether judges should be subject to a mandatory retirement age at all. Supporters of the amendment likely view the current rule as an unnecessary age-based restriction that can force out experienced judges, while opponents may see the age limit as a useful safeguard for judicial turnover, capacity, and public confidence. A secondary issue was the scope of the original proposal: committee amendments removed broader language barring age discrimination in public office and public employment, suggesting concern that the bill had been too expansive and should be limited to judges only.