CACR 9 (2026): relating to the retirement age for judges. Providing that the mandatory judicial retirement age shall be increased from 70 to 75.
Cite this page
Granite Record indexes the General Court’s record; it is not that record. Where a citation allows only one source, cite the General Court — every page here links to what it is drawn from. The date below is the day the page was read.
- MLA
- “CACR 9 (2026): relating to the retirement age for judges. Providing that the mandatory judicial retirement age shall be increased from 70 to 75.” Granite Record, https://graniterecord.org/bill/2026/cacr9. Accessed 19 Oct. 2026.
- APA
- Granite Record. (n.d.). CACR 9 (2026): relating to the retirement age for judges. Providing that the mandatory judicial retirement age shall be increased from 70 to 75. Retrieved 19 Oct. 2026, from https://graniterecord.org/bill/2026/cacr9
- Chicago
- Granite Record. “CACR 9 (2026): relating to the retirement age for judges. Providing that the mandatory judicial retirement age shall be increased from 70 to 75.” Accessed 19 Oct. 2026. https://graniterecord.org/bill/2026/cacr9.
- BibTeX
@misc{bill-2026-cacr9, title = {CACR 9 (2026): relating to the retirement age for judges. Providing that the mandatory judicial retirement age shall be increased from 70 to 75.}, howpublished = {Granite Record}, url = {https://graniterecord.org/bill/2026/cacr9}, note = {Accessed 19 Oct. 2026} }
CACR 9 (2026)
relating to the retirement age for judges. Providing that the mandatory judicial retirement age shall be increased from 70 to 75.
- Status: Failed to pass
- Term: 2025-2026
- House committee: Judiciary
- Subject: Constitutional Amendments
The Story
It was introduced on January 7, 2026 and referred to the House Judiciary committee. The committee held a public hearing on January 28, 2026, with 16 people signed in online: 16 in opposition. The committee met in executive session on January 28, 2026 to vote on its recommendation. The majority recommended that the House pass it, and the minority recommended that the House kill it, by a vote of 10–8. The report was placed on the regular calendar. On March 11, 2026 the House rejected a motion to pass it on a division vote 136–185.
Sponsors
- Rep. Bob Lynn (R - Rock 17) (prime sponsor)
- Sen. Kevin Avard (R - SD12)
- Rep. Jack Flanagan (R - Hills 45)
Hearings and Sessions
- January 28, 2026, 1:30 PM: public hearing, House Judiciary, GP 230
- January 28, 2026, 1:30 PM: executive session, House Judiciary, GP 230
- March 11, 2026: floor debate, House
Votes
- March 11, 2026, House: Ought to Pass — yeas 136, nays 185, failed
The Docket
- January 7, 2026: Introduced 01/07/2026 and referred to Judiciary
- January 28, 2026: Public Hearing: 01/28/2026 02:00 pm GP 230
- January 28, 2026: Public Hearing: 01/28/2026 01:30 pm GP 230
- January 28, 2026: Executive Session: 01/28/2026 01:30 pm GP 230
- January 28, 2026: Majority Committee Report: Ought to Pass 01/28/2026 (Vote 10-8; RC)
- February 2, 2026: Minority Committee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate
- March 11, 2026: Ought to Pass: MF DV 136-185 Lacking Necessary Three-Fifths Vote 03/11/2026
Laws It Would Change
- Part Second, Article 78 of the state Constitution