Among other things, the Nov. 5 election will put New Hampshire judges in the middle of a long debate about how to deal with older workers: whether it’s best to keep them for their experience or ease them out to make room for new blood.

A proposed amendment to the state constitution, tucked at the bottom of ballots, would raise the mandatory retirement age for judges to 75. (To be precise, they would have to retire before turning 76.)

Currently, under an amendment dating to 1792, judges must retire when they turn 70, the age at which federal age-discrimination protection ends. Under the amendment sheriffs would still have to retire at 70, as they currently do.

Passage would affect seven current judges who will hit age 70 by 2030. That includes two of the five Supreme Court justices (James Basset and Anna Marconi), two of the 48 circuit court judges and two of the 20 justices on the Land Use Review Docket. As a constitutional amendment, it requires a two-thirds majority of those who vote on the topic – not a two-thirds majority of all votes cast – to pass.

The amendment was placed on the ballot last year via overwhelming support from the State House (which voted 321-27) and Senate (22-1). The fact that the state legislature is filled with retired people, the group most likely to have time to do the job on a $100 annual salary, may have contributed to support for the amendment.

The prime sponsor was Rep. Bob Lynn, a Republican from Windham, who had to step down as a state Supreme Court in 2019 because he turned 70.

“I know I’ve lost a step or two physically, that’s for sure,” Lynn said during testimony, according to press reports. “But mentally, I think I’ve still got my faculties and would still be able to do a good job as a judge. … I think we lose some very good people as judges because they have to leave early.”

This is the argument generally made by people who stay on the job after retirement age, including this reporter: Knowledge and experience built up over time more than compensate for age-related deficiencies and forced retirement wastes this resource. They also note that average lifespans are a lot longer than they were in 1792.

The flip side of the issue was presented during debate by Rep. Joe Alexander, a Goffstown Republican, 29, who voted against the proposal. He said there were plenty of qualified people who would be stymied if we kept the existing judges on the bench longer: “Why not let the next generation start doing what they have to do?”

That’s the argument made by people who want to be hired or promoted: Keeping workers around too long clogs up the system and drives away new talent. Without mandatory retirement, you’ll waste that resource.

Federal laws deal with mandatory age-related retirement by limiting it. The Age Discrimination Employment Act of 1967 outlawed discrimination against workers aged 40-65 on the basis of their age; in 1978, Congress raised the upper age to 70.

But there’s a loophole, called Bona Fide Occupational Qualification or BFOQ, which is pronounced – well, I’m not sure how it’s pronounced. It says you can discriminate if there’s a legitimate reason, such as hiring a woman to act as a guard in a women-only facility.

Some professionals can be forced to retire earlier because of concerns that age will affect their abilities and endanger others. Pilots and bus drivers are the two professions usually cited but even there it is up for debate.

The FAA has put mandatory retirement for pilots on commercial airlines at 65. There was a federal bill this year to raise it to 67 but that didn’t pass.

Nobody has tried to say that judges have a BFOQ exemption but the debate about pilots echoes the debate about the judiciary in another way.

American aviation is facing a looming shortage of pilots. When the Regional Airline Association supported raising the age to 67 it said this “allows retention of more experienced captains, who can in turn fly alongside and mentor new first officers, helping to stabilize attrition.”

New Hampshire isn’t exactly facing a shortage of judges but the Judicial Branch says the caseload is increasing and it needs more judges and staff. Keeping judges on the bench longer could be seen as one way to deal with this.

The wording of the amendment doesn’t indicate whether the retirement age is being raised or lowered or why it’s different for judges compared to sheriffs. As a general rule, people who don’t understand an item on the ballot vote “no,” so it shouldn’t be a surprise if it fails. I wouldn’t take that as a commentary on mandatory retirement, one way or the other.

Incidentally, in case you were wondering, the Monitor does not have a mandatory retirement age.