Judges - Mandatory Retirement Age
HB 638 is a proposed Maryland constitutional amendment that would raise the mandatory retirement age for most judges from 70 to 73. It applies to judges of the state’s trial courts, appellate courts, and District Court judges, and it also creates a new mandatory retirement age of 73 for Orphans’ Court judges, with a limited exception allowing certain Orphans’ Court judges to finish an existing term. The bill also updates related constitutional provisions so that judges who are otherwise eligible may continue serving until age 73, subject to the existing rules for election, retention, appointment, and removal.
The measure includes transition rules for judges already in office when the amendment takes effect. In general, judges serving on or elected by November 3, 2026, could remain in office until age 70 under the transitional language for that election cycle, while Orphans’ Court judges elected by that date could serve out their full term regardless of age. The bill would be submitted to voters at the November 2026 general election, meaning it would not change the Constitution unless approved by the electorate.
If adopted, HB 638 would amend multiple sections of Article IV of the Maryland Constitution and add a temporary implementation section in Article XVIII. The practical effect would be to extend the service window for judges across Maryland’s judicial system, including appellate, circuit, District Court, and Orphans’ Court judges, and to align retirement rules and retention provisions with the new age 73 threshold. It would also preserve existing appointment, confirmation, and retention-election procedures while changing the age-based cutoff for judicial service.
The available bill history shows the measure moving forward in the House with a favorable committee report, amendments, and adoption of floor amendments, which suggests at least procedural support in the House. No committee transcript or recorded vote data is provided, so there is no direct evidence of detailed debate or opposition in the supplied materials. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a substantive but noncontroversial constitutional change at the House stage, with final approval left to the voters.
The main policy issue is whether Maryland should increase the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 73. Supporters would likely view the change as allowing experienced judges to serve longer and reducing turnover, while opponents may worry about delayed judicial renewal, age-related capacity concerns, or reduced opportunities for new judges. A secondary point of contention is the special treatment of Orphans’ Court judges, since the bill establishes a new retirement rule for them but also includes a transition exception allowing some judges to complete their terms.