Concord Rep. Connie Lane, a Democrat, doesn’t see a need to raise the mandatory retirement age for the state’s judges.

“I just think having set terms, the way they are, had worked for a long time and I don’t see that it’s been broken,” Lane said. “Part of me says, if it’s not broken, why fix it?”

She voted in the state’s House of Representatives last year and on Election Day against raising the judicial age limit from 70 to 75.

While a majority of New Hampshire voters disagreed and voted to amend the state Constitution, it fell just short of the two-thirds majority required to pass. On their ballots, just over 452,000 supported a constitutional amendment that would raise the retirement age while 237,000 opposed it, according to unofficial tallies from the Secretary of State’s office. The measure received 65.5 percent of the vote, but needed 66.6 percent.

While Windham Rep. Bob Lynn, a Republican, had hoped it’d pass – he sponsored a bill in 2023 that put the question on the ballot – he said before the vote was finalized that he would consider trying to put it on the ballot again, as long as he could be sure it’d receive the bipartisan support it did this time. It passed 321-27 in the House of Representatives and 22-1 in the Senate.

“What I don’t want is for this to in any way become a political issue,” Lynn said.

Lynn was an associate justice on the New Hampshire Supreme Court for about nine years and served as the chief justice for a little over a year before he hit age 70 and was forced to retire. On Tuesday, he won reelection to the House and will serve a second term.

“In this day and age, 70 is just too young,” Lynn said. “I certainly would have stayed beyond 70 if I could have.”

With the amendment’s failure, two justices on the New Hampshire Supreme Court – James Basset and Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, who is not currently serving due to a criminal matter – will reach the age limit in 2026. The governor and Executive Council determine who will fill those seats.

Phil Runyon, who served as the presiding justice of New Hampshire’s 8th circuit court in Jaffrey for 27 years and had to retire at age 70 in 2017, thinks concerns about raising the retirement age have “filtered down” from national politics. In recent years, widespread opposition has grown toward the lack of term limits for U.S. Supreme Court justices.

But, he said, experience shouldn’t be discounted. In his role, Runyon sometimes saw upward of 50 cases every day.

“It takes years to, I think, really learn the job. It’s not something that you can pick up in a matter of weeks or even months,” Runyon said. “There are many, many different aspects to that kind of job, not only knowledge of the law … but trying to develop the right demeanor and approach to different kinds of cases.”

Runyon said he voted for the amendment, but ideally, he’d like to see a reconfirmation hearing for judges when they turn 70. That could be a function of the governor and Executive Council, he said.

“There certainly are some judges that may or may not be capable or desirable to have on the job for another five years,” he said, though it’s not always mental acuity – some people may just be burnt out at that point.

While Runyon felt he could’ve served on the bench for longer, he’s since moved on.

“It’s not like I had to go sit in a rocking chair somewhere and just not do anything at all productive,” Runyon said. “I simply had to retire from the judgeship and went back to practicing law full time.”

While not all judges may feel they can or should continue past age 70, Lynn said, he’d like them to have the option. He believes there is a place and a need for an age limit – he disagrees with the federal law, which has no age limit – but he also said older judges bring a wealth of experience and qualifications to the court.

Others, like 21-year-old Peterborough Rep. Jonah Wheeler, a Democrat, think the 70-year age limit helps bring fresher, younger judges to the court system. That’s not to say it’s an issue of mental acuity – he thinks older officials have institutional knowledge and valuable experience – but he believes the current mandatory retirement age allows younger people to climb the ranks.

Because the court, and especially the Supreme Court, make long-term decisions for the state, Wheeler said younger people who will live “in the next era of society” should be able to “adjust the government” as society moves forward.

“Periodically, I think, people should be cycled through the system and given a new opportunity to rise up,” Wheeler said, “and raising the retirement age lessens the opportunity for people to rise up and advance in the system.”

Lynn understands that argument, but he values experience over turnover.

“I think the trade-off is worth it in being able to keep very highly experienced and well-qualified judges,” Lynn said.