Time for a New Mandatory Retirement Age for Failing or Elderly Government Leaders ---Post-Biden Experience

Doug Bernacchi MBA JD was denied due process by Rush’s Court, Witte, and Aaron Johnson. In 2019, according to mycase.in.gov, his lawyer filed a petition for review and reinstatement, but there had never been a hearing scheduled. Is that Indiana’s due process?

INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana General Assembly holds its constitutional power to check and provide balance that it has ignored for decades, leaving Hoosiers trapped under an increasingly insulated, unaccountable judicial elite.

HE has called for Rush to resign now. Her madness needs oversight and our legal system can’t wait IU to 2033.

While independent attorneys face career-ending, closed-door ethics investigations, the state’s highest jurists remain securely anchored to their benches until age 75.

Indiana law gives the legislature total authority to change this system with a simple majority vote—and it is time for lawmakers to act.

The national political landscape has shifted dramatically following the public fallout surrounding President Joe Biden's age, cognitive decline, and subsequent exit from the 2024 campaign trail. That experience proved to the American public that leaving elderly officials in positions of immense, unchecked power for too long poses a direct risk to the stable governance of our institutions. Indiana's courts are no exception.

Under Article 7, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution, the mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices and Appellate Court judges is not permanently fixed; it is explicitly deferred to state statute. The current limit of 75 is governed by Indiana Code § 33-38-13-8. By rewriting that single line of text, lawmakers can immediately accelerate judicial renewal, disrupt entrenched power networks, and force much-needed accountability upon a broken system.

Below is the exact legislative framework the Indiana General Assembly must introduce to curb judicial overreach and return power to the public.

SENATE/HOUSE BILL No. ____

A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning courts and court officers.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION 1. IC 33-38-13-8 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2027]:

Sec. 8. (a) Every justice of the supreme court and judge of the court of appeals shall retire at seventy-five (75) sicty-nine (69) years of age.

(b) Each justice or judge who is required to retire under subsection (a) shall do so on the date on which the justice or judge attains seventy-five (75) sixty-nine (69) years of age.

(c) If a justice or judge fails to retire as required by this section, the supreme court shall enter an order retiring the justice or judge, and the office shall become vacant.

SECTION 2. [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2027]

(a) Pursuant to Article 7, Section 11 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, the amendment made to IC 33-38-13-8 by SECTION 1 of this act applies only to a justice of the supreme court or judge of the court of appeals whose current term of office commences after June 30, 2027.

(b) This SECTION expires July 1, 2037.

BILL DIGEST (SUMMARY)

Mandatory judicial retirement age. Reduces the mandatory retirement age for a justice of the supreme court and a judge of the court of appeals from 75 years of age to 69 years of age. Provides that the age reduction applies only to an appellate justice or judge whose current term of office commences after June 30, 2027, in compliance with Article 7, Section 11 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Establishes that failure to retire results in an automatic declaration of vacancy by operation of law.

Why the IGA Must Act: The Case for Reform

Lowering the retirement age to 70 acts as a necessary institutional reset, addressing critical failures in Indiana's legal landscape:

1. Confronting the Concerns Over Current SCOIN Leadership

The Indiana Supreme Court (SCOIN), under its current leadership, has drawn severe criticism for acting as an insulated, self-protecting network, with exclusive authorities granted by the Indiana Constitution, without express checks and balances.

By utilizing strict, closed-door confidentiality rules during the early phases of disciplinary grievances, the court effectively shields well-connected judicial insiders while denying others due process, equal protection, and the certain Constitutional rights. it has weaponized or allowed others to weaponize its disciplinary machinery against many sole practitioners, and independent attorneys who challenged local political power structures, creating a lawyer shortage crisis in parts of the Indiana.

A 75-year retirement cap creates a culture of absolute immunity and near-lifetime tenures, which is not consistent with private sector practices and requirements.

Lowering the cap to 70 forces predictable cycles of judicial renewal, breaking up these entrenched power networks and restoring institutional reasoanbleness, excersing the other governmental branches' checks and balances.

2. Resolving the Indiana Lawyer Shortage

Indiana is currently facing a severe statewide lawyer shortage, creating massive "legal deserts" in rural counties where citizens have little to no access to legal representation. While the current leadership of the court oversees an administrative bottleneck, lowering the appellate retirement age opens up a highly sought-after pipeline. It forces the frequent vacation of elite seats, encouraging a younger, highly qualified generation of trial judges and practicing attorneys to stay and advance their careers within the state. By accelerating opportunities at the top, the state can revitalize its entire legal pipeline from law school graduates upward.

3. Restoring Democratic Accountability

Indiana's appellate judges are heavily insulated from standard democratic pressures, hiding behind a self-policing Disciplinary Commission. More frequent mandatory vacancies create rapid, predictable cycles where the executive branch and the public—via retention elections—can directly re-evaluate the direction of the judiciary.

This draft explicitly honors constitutional grandfathering protections, meaning no current justice will have their active term cut short. It establishes a uniform, clean standard for the future, preventing any claims of personal targeting while ensuring the court remains answerable to the people of Indiana.

The statutory path is clear, and the draft is ready. If lawmakers are serious about transparency, checked balances, and fixing Indiana's depleted legal system, they will pick up this bill and end the era of unchecked judicial longevity.

if she, Lorett Rush,l won’t follow the law, won’t set a legitimate hearing, and she won’t leave, make the retirement age 69! HE supports legal reform in Indiana and has published articles in the past highliting the factual needs for reform and different poroposals.