Politicians have a special knack for complicating things.

A mandatory retirement age for judges, for example. How hard can it be to ask Pennsylvania voters to consider raising the retirement age for judges, justices and magistrates statewide from 70 to 75?

More difficult than you’d think, apparently.

Last spring, Secretary of State Pedro Cortes drafted this question for the April primary ballot: “Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges and justices of the peace (known as magisterial district judges) be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years, instead of the current requirement that they be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 70?”

Too many words, said the Republican-controlled Legislature. Just two weeks before the April primary, they passed a joint resolution setting this language for the referendum: “Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges, and magisterial district judges be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years?”

Oops! Some counties still use printed ballots, and they could not print replacements in time for the election. So the Legislature directed Cortes to disregard the results of any primary votes and ordered that the question appear with the new wording on the Nov. 8 ballot.

It meant that voters in the primary could answer the question, even though the votes for that question did not count. Still, nearly 2.4 million voters cast ballots on the question and narrowly defeated it.

While not official, the defeat came as no surprise. Voters in other states have overwhelmingly defeated attempts to increase or abolish mandated judicial retirement ages.

The proposal has been sharply criticized as a political delay tactic by Republicans to hold onto power. Under the current rules, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor, a Republican, turns 70 in December and would have to retire. His successor would be Max Baer, a Democrat.

In July, two former state Supreme Court justices, both Democrats, sued Cortes to stop the change in wording on the forthcoming ballot question. Former Chief Justices Ronald D. Castille and Stephen Zappala Sr. said the shortened version omits any reference to the current retirement age, making is an attempt to hoodwink voters and influence the outcome.

In a perfect world, politics would not spill into the courts, but Pennsylvania is not a perfect world.

Judicial posts are distinctively secure. A 10-year term is renewed with a yes-or-no retention vote, meaning a judge does not need to run a traditional re-election campaign against opponents.

Ultimately, a judge whose retirement plans are not secure by his or her 70th birthday probably shouldn’t be a judge to begin with. And if he or she truly loves the law and the profession, there are plenty of distinguished, private-sector opportunities for former judges to pursue.

If there is a good reason to raise the mandatory retirement age for judges, we can’t think of it. Pennsylvanians should vote no on this ballot question.

— TAH