If you find yourself overcome with a sense of déjà vu tomorrow in the voting booth, chances are it will have to do with the referendum question about setting the mandatory retirement age for judges in Pennsylvania.

We voted on this issue in the spring primary. The vote didn’t count.

In a September editorial explaining why it didn’t count, we wrote that politicians have a special knack for complicating things. Apparently that hasn’t changed.

The problem then — and it’s still a problem — is that the referendum’s wording doesn’t make clear that the intent is to raise the retirement age to 75. Currently it’s 70. The ballot question neglects to mention the current retirement age.

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?”

That’s just too wordy, said the Republican-controlled Legislature. 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.

Critics have noted the increased retirement age is a political delay tactic by Republicans to hold onto power and block the current Gov. Tom Wolf from appointing Democratic replacements for top justices would be required to step down soon. 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.

While the wording has changed, the issue has not. Neither has our position on it.

Our September editorial stated that 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, then 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.