Opinion ID: 2318572
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Practice

Text: Judge Bernstein is correct when he asserts that the lack of a practice is not dispositive of a constitutional issue. Nevertheless, continuing the assumption, arguendo, that Article IV, § 3 is ambiguous, it should be remembered that this Court has . . . held that a contemporaneous construction placed upon a particular provision of the Maryland Constitution by the legislature, acquiesced in and acted upon without ever having been questioned, followed continuously and uniformly from a very early period, furnishes a strong presumption that the intention is rightly interpreted. Hornbeck v. Somerset County Bd. of Educ., 295 Md. 597, 620, 458 A.2d 758, 770 (1983) (citing Wyatt v. State Roads Commission, 175 Md. 258, 1 A.2d 619 (1938); Humphreys v. Walls, 169 Md. 292, 181 A. 735 (1935); Trustees of the Catholic Cathedral Church of Baltimore v. Manning, 72 Md. 116, 19 A. 599 (1890)). There is no denying that Maryland has a longstanding practice of not permitting judges to remain regular members of the bench after attaining the age of seventy. For better or worse, Maryland has maintained a policy of retiring judges at the age of seventy. That there is such a policy, and the strength of that policy, was demonstrated in the last decade of the 20th century. An amendment to raise the maximum age for all categories of judges from age seventy to age seventy-five, supported by Chief Judge Robert C. Murphy, former chief judge of this Court, and Chief Judge Robert F. Sweeney, former chief judge of the District Court, was proposed in the Legislature in 1994. See Delegates Vote to Increase Age for Judges' Retirement to 75, The Daily Record, Mar. 10, 1994 at 1. The amendment called for an increase in the maximum age of active service for all circuit court, District Court, and appellate court judges in the State, H.B. 1151, Bill Analysis by Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, and mandated that a majority of judges on the Court of Appeals certify annually that each judge over the age of seventy be physically, mentally, and temperamentally qualified to continue to perform the duties of office. 1994 Laws of Maryland, Ch. 104 § 1. (rejected Nov. 8, 1994). A judge so certified was to be eligible for reappointment or reelection for an additional term as provided in sections 3, 18B, [13] and 41D [14]  of Article IV. Id. The bill, passed by the Legislature, submitted the amendment to the voters pursuant to Article XIV of the State Constitution. In 1995, the Maryland voters rejected this amendment. The Maryland practice and policy of retiring judges, all judges, at age seventy, has been premised on the perception that it has been a constitutionally mandated aspect of the Maryland judiciary since 1851, albeit then only for judges of the Court of Appeals, and, since 1867, for circuit court judges. The only major change to the relevant portion of Article IV, § 3 was a constitutional amendment, ratified in 1932, that removed an exception to the seventy years of age requirement, thus precluding the Legislature from continuing judges in office after they attained age seventy. 1931 Laws of Md., ch. 479 (ratified Nov. 8, 1932). As the State notes in its brief, the last judge to be retained in office following his seventieth birthday retired in 1934. The practice with respect to new judges being elected or appointed is even more robust. Since the adoption of the language in Article IV, § 3, no judge in the State has been appointed or elected to the bench following his or her seventieth birthday. These longstanding practices provide further evidence that the intent of the framers of Article IV, § 3 was to ensure that there were no active judges over the age of seventy in Maryland's judiciary.