Oregon Measure 94, Elimination of Mandatory Judicial Retirement Age Amendment (2016)

Oregon Measure 94
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic State judiciary
Status d Defeated
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

2016 measures
November 8
Measure 94 d
Measure 95 a
Measure 96 a
Measure 97 d
Measure 98 a
Measure 99 a
Measure 100 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Oregon Elimination of Mandatory Judicial Retirement Age Amendment, also known as Measure 94, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Oregon as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported removing the mandatory retirement age for judges, which was 75 years old going into the election.

A "no" vote opposed this amendment removing the mandatory retirement age for judges.

Election results

Measure 94
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		1,194,167	63.05%
Yes		699,689	36.95%

Election results from Oregon Secretary of State

Overview

The Oregon Legislature referred to voters an amendment establishing a mandatory judicial retirement age of 75 in 1960. Known as Measure 9, voters overwhelmingly approved the measure. In 2016, 56 years after Measure 9, the legislature referred Measure 94 to the ballot, asking voters to repeal the mandatory retirement age for judges. It was defeated.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Amends Constitution: Eliminates mandatory retirement age for state judges Result of “Yes” Vote: “Yes” vote amends constitution, state judges not required to retire from judicial office after turning 75 years old. Statutes cannot establish mandatory retirement age. Result of “No” Vote: “No” vote retains constitutional provisions requiring state judges to retire from judicial office after turning 75 years old, authorizing statutes establishing lesser mandatory retirement age. Summary: Article VII (Amended), section 1a, of the Oregon Constitution, requires state judges to “retire from judicial office at the end of the calendar year” in which they turn 75 years old. Section 1a(1) authorizes laws that establish a lesser age—not younger than 70 years—for mandatory retirement. Measure amends constitution to remove provision requiring mandatory retirement at age 75, as well as provision authorizing statutes requiring mandatory retirement at age 70 or older. Measure retains constitutional provision that authorizes statutes permitting retired judges to be recalled to temporary active service. Measure retains constitutional provision that authorizes laws permitting or requiring judges to retire due to a physical or mental disability or any other cause that renders them incapable of performing their judicial duties.

”

Ballot summary

The measure explanatory statement was as follows:

“

Ballot Measure 94 amends the Oregon Constitution to remove provisions establishing a mandatory retirement age for state judges. Currently, a state judge must retire from judicial office at the end of the calendar year in which the judge attains the age of 75 years. The measure removes this requirement. The measure also removes the provision allowing the Legislative Assembly or the people to establish a statutory mandatory retirement age for state judges.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article VII, Oregon Constitution

The measure would have amended Section 1a of Article VII of the Oregon Constitution. The following struck-through text would have been deleted and the underlined text would have been added:

Sec. 1a. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1, Article VII (Amended) of this Constitution, a judge of any court shall retire from judicial office at the end of the calendar year in which he attains the age of 75 years. The Legislative Assembly or the people may by law:

(1) Fix a lesser age for mandatory retirement not earlier than the end of the calendar year in which the judge attains the age of 70 years;

(2) (1) Provide for recalling retired judges to temporary active service on the court from which they are retired; and

(3) (2) Authorize or require the retirement of judges for physical or mental disability or any other cause rendering judges incapable of performing their judicial duties.

This section shall not affect the term to which any judge shall have been elected or appointed prior to or at the time of approval and ratification of this section.

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

There is no financial impact to state revenue or expenditures. There is no financial impact on local government revenue or expenditures.

”

Background

Voting on State Judiciary
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot

Measure 9

See also: Oregon Compulsory Retirement for Judges, Measure 9 (1960)

In 1960, the Oregon Legislature referred to the ballot Measure 9, a constitutional amendment requiring judges to retire at the age of 75 or when disabled at age of 70. Over 82 percent of voters cast their ballots in support of the measure. Measure 94 of 2016 would have amended Measure 9.

Agnes Petersen

In 2014, Oregon attorney Agnes Petersen challenged the state's mandatory retirement age, calling it unconstitutional and discriminatory against both age and gender. Petersen alleged the section discriminates against women because it specifically uses male pronouns. A section of the law states, "a judge of any court shall retire from judicial office at the end of the calendar year in which he attains the age of 75 years." The attorney filed the lawsuit after the secretary of state did not allow her to run for judge because she was past the age of 75, but the case was thrown out.

Support

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. Kate Brown (D)
• Rep. David Gomberg (D-10)

Organizations

• Oregon Progressive Party

Arguments

Jason Heym, an attorney, argued:

“

As an active trial attorney I can sincerely state that some of the best jurists are those with the most life experience. It is a disservice to the community at large and the legal community specifically to force the most experienced people from the bench. Age is not a good indicator for vigor and effectiveness.

”

Jean Martwick, Deputy District Attorney of Columbia County, stated:

“

As a former Judge, I know that the job is difficult and requires broad shoulders. Most of those qualities are developed over time and do not go away because a person has reached a certain age. I am hoping that you will vote to get rid of the outdated mandatory retirement age and allow the people who willing put themselves in the difficult position decide how long she/he wants to continue to contribute to the community.

”

Arguments filed in support

The Oregon Legislature provided the following arguments in favor of Measure 94:

“

The 2015 Legislative Assembly referred SJR 4 to the ballot for a vote of the people. The Legislature recommends a “yes” vote. SJR 4 would amend the Oregon Constitution by taking out the requirement that Oregon state and certain county judges must retire at the end of the calendar year in which they turn 75 years of age. This discriminatory provision does not allow judges to serve out their full terms; it requires judges to retire even in the middle of a current term. No other elected officials in Oregon are subject to mandatory age-based retirement. The Oregon Constitution should not prohibit state and certain county judges from serving just because they have reached the age of 75. This discriminatory provision should be removed from the state’s constitution. It serves no useful purpose. Oregon’s judicial system includes the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability. This commission provides the means to address issues of physical, mental or emotional challenges that state judges might face that could impede them from performing competent judicial work, no matter their age. The commission can recommend to the Oregon State Court the removal of a judge who the commission determines is unfit to continue to serve as a judge. Individuals live and work longer than previous generations. Many of our most effective judges have acquired their knowledge and experience during the time they have served as judges. They should not be forced to retire simply because they have reached the age of 75. Oregonians should be allowed to vote for anyone who meets the general qualifications to serve as a judge in the state. They should not be denied this right simply because the person has reached a certain age. The current prohibition prevents good judges from continuing to serve their community and the state. Oregonians should end this discrimination. The Legislature urges a “yes” vote.

”

The City Club of Portland provided the following arguments in support of Measure 94 to the secretary of state's office:

“

Mandatory retirement age has not been shown to provide any significant benefit to the judicial process. Instead, it can eliminate a judge who is both willing and able to continue to provide valuable experience to the process, doing a disservice to those who are capable and willing to continue to serve into their later years. Why vote YES? A mandatory retirement age does real harm to individuals and to society. Even if effective, it is an indiscriminate method of ensuring an effective judiciary, sweeping out the competent judges with the incompetent. Modern gerontological research finds that aging affects persons differently and at different rates, with no indication that seventy-five is a universal point of decline. Our understanding of older adults’ place in society and the effects of ageism have evolved; there is both a civil rights precedent and greater societal support to allow those who are capable and willing to serve to do so beyond the age of seventy-five. This measure attempts to solve a variety of pressing issues for Oregon’s judiciary with too blunt an instrument— the potential damage outweighs the benefits to individuals and the state of Oregon. Significant time has passed since the original adoption of this provision. We have gained additional knowledge about both the aging process, as well as the understanding of older adults’ place in society. A mandatory retirement age is broad and ineffective. A “yes” vote is recommended on Measure 94.

”

Opposition

Ken Fairfax was the sole committee member of the City Club of Portland to recommend a "No" vote on Measure 94. The following was his argument against the measure:

“

The minority concurs with the research and analysis presented by the majority but does not believe that evidence available provides a sufficiently compelling case to warrant amending the Constitution of Oregon. At best, if the mandatory retirement age is repealed that might have a slight positive impact by allowing a very small number of judges over the age of 75 who do not wish to retire to continue serving. At worst, the approval of Measure 94 might have a slight negative impact by incrementally decreasing the efficiency and possibly fairness of the Oregon judiciary. The problem that your committee faced in researching this ballot measure is that those who drafted and supported Measure 94 made no attempt to assess the overall impact of the measure on the Oregon judiciary. Instead, as noted in the majority report, and according to first-hand witness testimony, the proposed amendment was drafted in response to a request from an individual lawyer who wished to run for judge after turning 75. Opinions from expert witnesses on this measure were divided, but irrespective of whether a witness supported or opposed the initiative, all of them prefaced their comments with the caveat that they do not have data on which to base a considered opinion. The mandatory retirement age of 75 that was approved by more than 82 percent of Oregon voters in 1960 was based upon two years of in-depth research on the relationship between aging and efficiency. Additional research by the City Club of Portland affirmed the research done for the Oregon Legislature and strongly endorsed the mandatory retirement age even after explicitly acknowledging that the mandatory retirement age would be unfair to those judges who are able and willing to serve beyond their 75th birthday. As much as the minority shares the hope that the mandatory retirement age could be removed without adverse impacts, in the absence of updated research or data to contradict the 1960 studies, hope alone does not constitute a sufficient enough basis to change the constitution.

”

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Oregon ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2016.

One committee registered in support of the measure—Defend Oregon. It reported over $2.1 million in contributions.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$1,827,283.22	$294,033.22	$2,121,316.44	$1,353,860.54	$1,647,893.76
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$1,827,283.22	$294,033.22	$2,121,316.44	$1,353,860.54	$1,647,893.76

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Measure 94
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Defend Oregon	$1,827,283.22	$294,033.22	$2,121,316.44	$1,353,860.54	$1,647,893.76
Total	$1,827,283.22	$294,033.22	$2,121,316.44	$1,353,860.54	$1,647,893.76

Donors

The following were the top donors who contributed to the support committees

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Citizen Action for Political Education	$706,750.00	$0.00	$706,750.00
Our Oregon	$0.00	$269,617.00	$269,617.00
American Federation of Teachers-Oregon Issue PAC	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
National Education Association	$150,000.00	$0.00	$150,000.00
Oregon AFSCME Council 75	$125,000.00	$0.00	$125,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

Support

• Albany Democrat-Herald said: "The current requirement doesn't even allow judges to serve out the remainder of their terms; at the end of the calendar year in which they turn 75, they're forced to step down. No other elected officials in Oregon are subject to mandatory age-based retirement, so this requirement is discriminatory as well."

• The Bend Bulletin said: "By voting yes, Oregonians can correct an injustice to individual jurists while also giving themselves the benefit of being served by mature judges with critical knowledge and experience. ... In other words, age would no longer be assumed to mean incompetence, thus removing an antiquated bit of discrimination from the constitution."

• Corvallis Gazette-Times said: "The requirement is a relic of an age in which people didn't live and work as long as they do today; there was a time when 75 must have seemed ancient. That's no longer the case; it seems silly to turn away competent judges with a lifetime of experience, just because they've reached an arbitrary age."

• The Daily Astorian said: "Long-serving judges accumulate decades of experience and wisdom during their careers and Oregonians should not be deprived of their service during their day in court by an unneeded and arbitrary law. Those jurists who want to continue their service on the bench should have that opportunity and not be forced into retirement."

• East Oregonian endorsed a "Yes" vote.

• Eugene Weekly said: "Most judges are eager to retire long before 75, and the few who want to continue should have the option. Although they are not Oregon judges, we think of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Judge Harry Pregerson of the 9th Circuit, ruling brilliantly long past 75."

• The Mail Tribune said: "We all know vital, energetic people in their 70s, and among them are some very experienced, capable judges. There is no rational reason to set an arbitrary age limit. If a judge wants to continue serving — or an attorney wants to run for the bench after retiring from private practice, more power to them."

• The Oregonian said: "But the broader hardship of the current law is borne by all Oregonians, deprived of the services of some very fine jurists. Vote yes on Measure 94 to allow judges to serve as long as they are able and have the will do so — and also to bleach from the Constitution's age limit provision male-only references, a gender insult. The state's Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability, meanwhile, already has a process for removing judges who might show deficiencies at any age."

• Portland Tribune (Pamplin Media Group) said: "But voters should acknowledge times have changed and amend the constitution again, to reverse the 1960 amendment and eliminate mandatory retirement for Oregon judges."

• The Register-Guard said, "Not many state judges continue working to age 75 and beyond, the state Judicial Department has said. There is no reason to force those experienced judges who are still willing and able to serve into mandatory retirement at that arbitrary age, depriving the people of Oregon of their services."

• Willamette Week said: “State lawmakers want the clause stricken from the constitution, and they're right. Wisdom doesn't have an expiration date. We don't like term limits—and we sure don't like age discrimination. Let's put this antiquated requirement out to pasture.”

Opposition

• The Dalles Chronicle said: "By a vote of 4-3, the board opposed Measure 94... dissenters on the board felt that judges making decisions that affect people’s lives, sometimes forever, had to be sharper in thought and discernment than other officials and those qualities tend to fall away with advanced age."

Polls

See also: 2016 ballot measure polls

• In early September 2016, icitizen surveyed 610 Oregonians and found 53 percent in opposition to Measure 94.

Oregon Elimination of Mandatory Judicial Retirement Age, Measure 94 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
icitizen 9/2/16 - 9/7/16	33.0%	53.0%	14.0%	+/-4.00	610
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Oregon Constitution

The legislative procedures for placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot are outlined in Section 1 of Article XVIII of the Oregon Constitution. In order to get an amendment placed on the ballot, the "majority of all the members elected to each of the two houses" of the legislature must vote in favor of the amendment.

Senate Joint Resolution 4 was introduced in the senate on January 1, 2015. The Oregon Senate unanimously approved the measure on April 15, 2015, with all 30 senators voting "aye." It was approved by the Oregon House of Representatives on June 23, 2015, with 41 representatives voting "yea" and 17 voting "nay."

Senate vote

April 15, 2015

Oregon SJR 4 Senate Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		30	100.00%
No		0	0.00%

House vote

June 23, 2015

Oregon SJR 4 House Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		41	70.69%
No		17	29.31%

State profile

Demographic data for Oregon
	Oregon	U.S.
Total population:	4,024,634	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	95,988	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	85.1%	73.6%
Black/African American:	1.8%	12.6%
Asian:	4%	5.1%
Native American:	1.2%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.4%	0.2%
Two or more:	4.1%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	12.3%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	89.8%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	30.8%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$51,243	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	18.4%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Oregon. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Oregon

Oregon voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, two are located in Oregon, accounting for 0.97 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Oregon had two Retained Pivot Counties, 1.10 of all Retained Pivot Counties.

More Oregon coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Oregon
• United States congressional delegations from Oregon
• Public policy in Oregon
• Endorsers in Oregon
• Oregon fact checks
• More...

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Oregon mandatory judicial retirement Measure 94. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Oregon Measure 94, Elimination of Mandatory Judicial Retirement Age Amendment (2016) - Google News

Related measures

State judiciary measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania Judicial Retirement Age Amendment a
Alabama	Alabama Qualifying Age for Pickens County Judges, Amendment 9 d

See also

Suggest a link

• Oregon 2016 ballot measures
• 2016 ballot measures
• Oregon Legislature
• List of Oregon ballot measures

External links

• Senate Joint Resolution 4
• Oregon 2016 Voters' Pamphlet
• League of Women Voters of Oregon 2016 Ballot Measures Guide

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox