Citizen in a RepublicNH Bill Briefing
← All bills

CACR 9 · 2026 · House · Judiciary Committee

Raise judicial retirement age to 75

AI-generated

relating to the retirement age for judges. Providing that the mandatory judicial retirement age shall be increased from 70 to 75.

Proposes a constitutional amendment increasing the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75.AI-generated

Status

Recommended for passage but never voted; died at adjournment · March 11, 2026
  1. ✓Introduced
  2. ✕House
  3. Senate
  4. On the ballot

Analysis

This constitutional amendment concurrent resolution would increase the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75.

From the bill's official ANALYSIS section.

In the bill's words

Quoted verbatim from the bill as introduced. Passages chosen from the operative text.Computed by this site

“No person shall hold the office of [judge of any court, or judge of probate, or] sheriff of any county, after [he] the person has attained the age of seventy years.”
From the bill
“No person shall hold the office of judge of any court after the person has attained the age of seventy-five years.”
From the bill
“To decide whether the amendments of the constitution proposed by the 2026 session of the general court shall be approved.”
From the bill
“No person shall hold the office of sheriff of any county, after the person has attained the age of seventy years.”
From the bill

Official record

Bill page — docket & status

gc.nh.gov · the authoritative source

Sponsors

Rep. Bob LynnRPrimeChair· Judiciary
  • Sen. Kevin AvardRDeputy Majority Whip

Also: Rep. Jack FlanaganR

Public testimony

16 signed in online · 4 wrote testimony

0% support100% oppose0% neutral

In their wordsVerbatim, exactly as submitted

“We need to help judges cycle out faster to just get the bad ones out. We've seen the kind of damage bad ones do. Article from 2024 shows judges can stay way too long even with 70 yo limit.…”
— Daniel Richardson, Nashuaopposes
“We are pushing the age limit on this already. I think we should roll it back to 65 honestly.”
— Dan Millet, Berlinopposes
“We voted no on this during the last election despite the deceptive wording. This is not a change the people want.”
— Alexandra Prescott, Raymondopposes

Verbatim excerpts of submitted testimony, quoted from the testimony tool.

Read the testimony · as of Aug 12, 2026

Votes

yeanay
Starting text: Bill as introduced
  • Jan 28, 2026HouseCommittee report· regular calendar: Ought to Pass10–8
    Overall
    56% yea
  • Mar 11, 2026HouseDivisionOught to PassFailed136–185
    Overall
    42% yea

Hearings and debates

  • Jan 28, 2026Public hearingHouse Judiciary4:15:07–4:19:214m 14slocated in the stream transcriptMajority Committee Report: Ought to Pass — roll call; ==RESCHEDULED== Public Hearing; Public Hearing
  • Mar 11, 2026Floor debateHouse floor10:58:24–11:02:484m 24slocated in the stream transcriptOught to Pass — failed, division 136-185

Timestamps locate where this bill is taken up in the chamber's YouTube stream.

Legislative history

  1. Jan 7, 2026HouseIntroduced 01/07/2026 and referred to Judiciary HJ 1 P. 40
  2. Jan 28, 2026House==RESCHEDULED== Public Hearing: 01/28/2026 02:00 pm GP 230
  3. Jan 28, 2026HousePublic Hearing: 01/28/2026 01:30 pm GP 230
  4. Jan 28, 2026HouseExecutive Session: 01/28/2026 01:30 pm GP 230
  5. Jan 28, 2026HouseMajority Committee Report: Ought to Pass 01/28/2026 (Vote 10-8; RC) HC 10 P. 55
  6. Feb 2, 2026HouseMinority Committee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate
  7. Mar 11, 2026HouseOught to Pass: MF DV 136-185 Lacking Necessary Three-Fifths Vote 03/11/2026 HJ 7 P. 228

Coverage

No reporting linked yet.

Documents (PDF)

Bill text & amendments link direct to gc.nh.gov; committee reports stream from the state record.