Inquirer editorial: Pa. high court's retirement age ruling was self-serving

The state Supreme Court's decision Friday to leave it to voters to decipher a misleading ballot question that would raise the mandatory retirement age for Pennsylvania judges from 70 to 75 is a self-serving affront to democracy.

The court deadlocked earlier this month when asked to rule on litigation that questioned the ballot question's accuracy. Since it was unable to reach a decision, the high court should have allowed Commonwealth Court to review the matter.

The original question, written for the April primary ballot, clearly stated its intent: to raise the retirement age from 70 to 75. But the Republican-controlled legislature changed the measure's wording at the last minute to remove any reference to the current retirement age and the primary results were voided.

At the time, the Supreme Court included only one Republican, Chief Justice Thomas Saylor, who turns 70 in December, and it appeared that the Republicans were attempting to prolong Saylor's tenure. A second Republican, Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy, joined the court in July.

If the ballot question remains as written, many voters may think they are being asked to set a retirement age for judges for the first time. They might vote differently if they understand that they are being asked to add five years to an elderly judge's tenure.

The integrity of the democratic process is threatened when voters are given misleading information. That this matter has been decided by judges who have a stake in it makes their decision even more odious.