After publishing our initial overview of Louisiana’s proposed constitutional amendments, we received several follow-up questions about Amendment 5. At first glance, it may seem like one of the simplest items on the ballot. It only changes one number in the Constitution: seventy becomes seventy-five.
But as with many constitutional amendments in Louisiana, the real issue is not the number itself. It is the principle behind it. Amendment 5 is not merely about age. It is about accountability, judicial independence, and whether the least politically accountable elected office in Louisiana should receive even longer tenure.
The Pitch: Keep Experienced Judges Longer
Supporters of Amendment 5 make arguments that are easy to understand. People are living longer and working longer. Many seventy-year-olds today remain sharp, active, and fully capable of performing demanding work. Forcing judges into retirement solely because of age may deprive the public of experienced jurists with decades of legal knowledge.
Supporters also argue that voters should decide whether a judge remains fit for office. If citizens are comfortable re-electing a judge, why should the Constitution step in and impose a mandatory retirement age? Those are fair arguments.
What the Amendment Actually Does
Amendment 5 would raise the age restriction for judges from seventy to seventy-five. Under current law:
- A person who is seventy or older cannot run for election or reelection as a judge.
- A judge who turns seventy while serving may finish the current term.
If Amendment 5 passes, the same rule would apply, but the threshold becomes seventy-five instead of seventy. That may sound minor, but it carries real consequences. Because many judicial terms are lengthy, a judge elected shortly before age seventy-five could continue serving for years afterward. On some courts, that could mean service into the early or mid-eighties.
Why Judges Are Different
Supporters often ask a fair question: Why do judges have an age limit when governors, legislators, sheriffs, and mayors do not? The answer is that judges already occupy a unique position in our system. Judges:
- exercise immense power over liberty, property, family disputes, and criminal sentencing,
- serve longer terms than many elected officials,
- are expected to remain independent from ordinary political pressure, and
- face limited practical accountability between elections.
That independence exists for good reason. We do not want judges deciding cases based on polls, pressure campaigns, or partisan mobs. But independence also creates tradeoffs.
The Accountability Problem
Unlike many elected officials, judges are not easily removed mid-term by voters. There is no ordinary recall process for dissatisfied citizens. Discipline or removal generally requires complaints, investigations, recommendations, and action through the judiciary’s own formal processes. In practice, that means voters usually get one meaningful remedy: the next election. And in many judicial races:
- incumbents run unopposed,
- challengers struggle to raise funds,
- voters have limited information, and
- turnout is often low.
So while judges are technically elected, the public’s practical ability to correct a poor judicial choice can be limited.
Long Terms, No Term Limits, Now Five More Years?
Louisiana judges do not face term limits. Some judges are first elected relatively young and can serve for decades. That means Amendment 5 is not simply allowing a few extra birthdays on the bench. It can extend already lengthy judicial careers even further. For some voters, that may be a virtue: Experience matters.
For others, it raises a different concern: renewal matters too. Fresh perspectives, changing legal philosophies, and periodic turnover can be healthy in any institution that wields so much power.
The Real Question
This amendment ultimately asks voters to weigh two legitimate values:
- Experience and continuity — keeping capable judges who still have more to give.
- Accountability and renewal — ensuring regular opportunities for new leadership and public review.
That is the real debate. Not whether seventy-five is old. Not whether seventy is young. But whether an office already designed to be insulated from politics should become even more insulated through longer tenure.
A Different Standard Already Exists
One argument for Amendment 5 is that judges should be treated like every other elected official. But the reality is that judges are already treated differently. They receive:
- special ethical rules,
- greater independence,
- longer terms in many cases,
- and special removal procedures.
That different treatment is often justified. Judges are not legislators. The question before voters is whether that different treatment should now include five additional years.
Bottom Line
Amendment 5 is less about age than it is about governance. It asks whether Louisiana should extend the tenure of one of the most powerful and least directly accountable elected offices in state government. Reasonable people can disagree. But voters should understand that this is not simply a kindness toward older judges. It is a structural decision about power, turnover, and accountability on the bench.
That is the question Louisiana voters will answer on May 16.
Subscribe to this on Apple Podcasts
