(The Center Square) – Democratic lawmakers discussed lowering the mandatory retirement age for Virginia Supreme Court justices after last week’s ruling striking down Virginia’s congressional redistricting amendment.
The discussions reached U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., during a private Saturday call involving members of Virginia’s congressional delegation, according to reporting by The New York Times.
The proposal involved lowering the mandatory retirement age for Virginia Supreme Court justices from 73 to 54. All seven today are older than 54.
There’s also reported legal discussion related to the Tazewell County Circuit Court ruling in January.
Virginia Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell later distanced himself from the proposal, telling Virginia Scope on Monday that the idea was not happening, citing election timeline restrictions and calling forced judicial retirement “extreme.”
The court ruled 4-3 last week to invalidate the amendment hastily rushed before voters. On April 21, with litigation to its merit ongoing, voters approved a statewide referendum that would put a new congressional district map into play in November and potentially flipped four seats from Republican to Democrat.
Virginia Supreme Court justices are appointed by the General Assembly. Article VI, Section 9 of the Virginia Constitution gives the General Assembly authority to establish mandatory retirement ages for judges.
Democrats have majorities in both chambers of the Legislature and an ally in Spanberger.
Virginia lawmakers are not subject to a mandatory retirement age.
The retirement age was raised from 70 to 73 under legislation approved in 2015. A proposal to raise the age further to 75 failed during the 2022 legislative session.
Republicans criticized the proposal as court-packing following Friday’s ruling.
Court filings indicate Elections Commissioner Steven Koski warned that map changes after May 12 could significantly disrupt election preparations ahead of Virginia’s scheduled August primaries.
The Center Square was unsuccessful prior to publication getting comment from Surovell or Scott.
