The civic record
Read. Follow. Verify.Arizona proposes constitutional amendment to raise judicial mandatory retirement age from 70 to 75
Last action · March 25, 2026: DPSponsor: T.J. Shope
Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.
What This Bill Proposed
Arizona SCR 1040 proposes a constitutional amendment to raise the mandatory retirement age for state justices and judges from 70 to 75 years old, pending voter approval at the next general election.
Changes the length of time active judges can serve on the bench before reaching the mandatory retirement threshold, affecting judicial retention timelines and appellate or trial court vacancies.
Who It Would Have Affected
Groups the bill's text would have affected, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.
Justices and judges of courts of record
Their mandatory retirement age is increased from 70 to 75, altering how long they are permitted to hold judicial office.
Arizona voters
They must vote on whether to approve or reject the proposed constitutional amendment at the next general election.
Key Facts
- Raises the mandatory retirement age for justices and judges of courts of record from 70 to 75 years of age.
- Requires the proposed constitutional amendment to be submitted to Arizona voters at the next general election.
- Directs that upon attaining 75 years of age, a justice or judge's judicial office becomes vacant, subject to existing exceptions.
- Maintains provisions allowing retired justices and judges drawing retirement pay to serve temporarily and receive active compensation and expenses less retirement benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does SCR 1040 change regarding judges?
When would this change take effect if passed?
Can retired judges still serve after reaching retirement age?
What else do you want to know?
News Coverage
Follow the record
Votes, people, money & the original sourceWhere This Stands
This resolution did not become law - Died at adjournment · passed the Senate · in House committee.
Procedural history
10 actions- Mar 25, 2026HouseCommitteeDP
- Mar 9, 2026HouseFloorHouse Second Reading
- Mar 5, 2026HouseIntroducedHouse First Reading
- Mar 2, 2026HouseTransmit to House
- Mar 2, 2026SenateFloorPASSED
- Mar 2, 2026SenateDP
Show 4 earlier actions
- Feb 25, 2026SenatePFC
- Feb 20, 2026SenateCommitteeDP
- Feb 4, 2026SenateFloorSenate Second Reading
- Feb 3, 2026SenateIntroducedSenate First Reading
Version history
Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.
View official text →Voting Record
Passed
Total
30
- Yes
- 17
- No
- 13
- Present
- 0
- Not voting
- 0
- Abstain
- 0
How they voted (25)
1 more members
Lobbying Activity
No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.
Full breakdown
Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.
Sponsors
Connected Entities
Sources
apps.azleg.gov
Analysis Score
0–100- Significance65How much this matters to a regular citizen
- Controversy40Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
- Entertainment5Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
- Buzz30Current news / social attention level
Publisher tools