With all of the hype surrounding the 2016 presidential elections, most Pennsylvanians know that when they enter the voting booth on Primary Day, April 26, they will cast votes to choose their party's presidential candidate. But they also should be aware that the ballot will include Proposed Constitutional Amendment 1, which could have a major impact on the future of the judiciary in the commonwealth.

     If approved by voters, this proposal would amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to extend the mandatory retirement age from 70 to 75 years of age for justices, judges and justices of the peace, also known as magisterial district judges.

     The Pennsylvania Bar Association favors the proposed constitutional amendment for the following reasons: the justice system will benefit from the experience and wisdom of long-serving judges, the average life expectancy has lengthened since the time the current mandatory retirement age was adopted, and many federal judges sit and perform at a high level well beyond the age of 70.

     In The Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton argued in favor of lifetime judicial appointments. Hamilton made two arguments that justify increasing the mandatory retirement age: the length of time it takes to master the law and that a temporary appointment will inhibit the best from becoming a judge. Why retire a judge who has gained significant and valuable experience? As Pennsylvania's founder, William Penn, observed, "Experience is a safe guide."

     Mandatory judicial retirement was a result of the 1967 - 68 Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention. However, between 1970 and 2010 life expectancy for those already 65 years of age, according to the CDC, increased from 15.2 to 19.1 years. If the life expectancy for a 65-year-old is now 84, it makes little sense to adhere to a mandatory retirement age of 70. Advancements in nutrition, medical care and the quality of life have extended not only the life expectancy of Americans but also their statistical work life well beyond the life expectancy at the time the existing mandatory retirement age was enacted.

     The federal judiciary, which has no mandatory retirement age, presents a good example for the extension of Pennsylvania's judicial retirement age. There are presently six Third Circuit judges older than 70. In the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, there are more than a dozen senior district judges accepting case assignments. Were there a mandatory retirement age of 70 for federal judges, Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer would not be allowed to serve, yet they are very productive and knowledgeable members of the Supreme Court.

Our society treats people as individuals, recognizing that to do anything else risks stereotyping. The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, when enacted, prohibited discrimination against those 40 to 65 of age; the upper limit was raised to 70 in 1978 and discarded completely in 1986. No institution is more important in ensuring that fundamental rights are protected than the judiciary, and yet in Pennsylvania, we stereotype judges by making them retire at 70. The fact that we have a number of senior judges sitting by appointment shows the illogical nature of such stereotyping.

     Every day, across this great commonwealth, hard-working judges discharge their duties faithfully, earnestly, and with fidelity. We are fortunate to have many qualified and experienced judges approaching the age of 70 who have a wealth of knowledge and the requisite energy to share if allowed to continue in their positions. I urge all Pennsylvanians to vote to approve Proposed Constitutional Amendment 1 so that these jurists can continue to serve the public effectively and ensure that justice continues to be served.

William H. Pugh V is the president of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.