The Rolling Stones’ Mick Jagger leapt, pranced and pouted in a Minneapolis stadium for more than two hours last month, according to the Pioneer Press review of the concert.
At nearly 72 years old (his birthday is July 26), Jagger might be young enough to writhe in front of thousands, but — were he so schooled and amenable — he would be far too old to don a judge’s black robe in Minnesota.
In Minnesota, judges and justices are required to retire the same month as their 70th birthday. Former Supreme Court Justice Paul Anderson was booted off the bench a few years ago because of his age. Justice Alan Page will soon depart for the same reason, and Justice Christopher Dietzen will be forced to step down in 2017.
In a state in which about 10 percent of the population works past age 70, losing that experience and wisdom might seem a waste.
It takes a while for the men and women in black to get the hang of the job, say those who have had it. And others responsible for big decisions, including governors and lawmakers, are not required to leave their posts because they have a few gray hairs. More than a dozen current state lawmakers have seen their 70th birthdays come and go, and Gov. Mark Dayton will turn 70 before he leaves office.
And if the voters decide that a judge is unfit, he or she can be passed over.
Only 19 states lack any judicial retirement requirement, including Wisconsin, where the retirement age is not enforced. In another dozen states, the age cutoff is higher than Minnesota’s. For judges in Vermont, it’s 90.
In other states, mandatory retirement ages for those on the bench have been a major issue of late.
Not so in Minnesota. Lawmakers rarely mention the retirement age and have messed with it even less frequently.
In this state, changing the retirement age would be relatively easy. While the hard-to-amend constitution mentions a retirement age for jurists, it does not mention which age it should be.
“The Legislature may provide by law for retirement of all judges,” article 6, section 9 of the constitution reads. Before that provision was adopted in 1956, the state had no provision dealing with judicial retirement. It wasn’t until 1973 that the Legislature settled on age 70.
There is a case to be made that a retirement age is needed, and some retired jurists make it.
Kathleen Gearin, who served for 26 years as a Ramsey County District Judge, retired voluntarily at age 68.
“I think I would be able to do the job just fine; I just wanted to do something different,” she said. But that’s not true of all judges. She said that for every one judge who could serve ably in their 70s, there are several others who could not.
Former Justice Anderson, who retired in 2013 at age 70, agrees a retirement age can serve a need. He said he could argue that 72 might be better than 70, and he feels 75 would be too high.
“There is a time and a season for everything,” Anderson said. Required retirement allows new voices to be heard from the bench.
And Justice Page, who won the right to run for the office in 1992 in a case decided by a panel of retired judges, said he can see both sides of mandatory retirement.
“I think today’s 70-year-olds are different from the 70-year-old of 20 years ago,” he said.
But he is on no rampage to stop his forced retirement.
“That’s just what the rules are,” he said. “It is not something I spent any time at all thinking about.”
Rachel E. Stassen-Berger’s column appears Wednesdays in the Pioneer Press. She can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her at twitter.com/rachelsb.
