State v. James Buckner (074390), 121 A.3d 290

Background

Plaintiff James Buckner was tried and convicted in 2012 before Judge Salem Vincent Ahto, a retired Superior Court judge who had been recalled to temporary service under N.J.S.A. 43:6A-13; Judge Ahto was over age 70 at trial.
Buckner moved to disqualify the judge, arguing the Recall Statute was unconstitutional because the State Constitution mandates that judges “shall be retired upon attaining the age of 70 years.”
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction; the panel split on the constitutional question but upheld the statute as consistent with the Judicial Article and legislative authority to govern pensioning and recall.
The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the Recall Statute conflicts with Article VI § 6 ¶ 3 (Judicial Article) and related constitutional provisions, and whether it violates separation of powers.
The Court reviewed constitutional text, the 1947 Constitutional Convention history, legislative enactments (1964, 1968, 1975), the long, unchallenged practice of recall, and the strong presumption of statutory constitutionality.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Recall Statute conflicts with the Judicial Article’s mandatory-retirement clause	Buckner: “shall be retired” forbids any judicial service after 70; recall is unconstitutional	State: Retirement and temporary recall are distinct; Constitution is silent on recall and leaves details to Legislature	Held: Recall statute is constitutional; “shall be retired” does not clearly forbid temporary recall; statute survives presumption of validity
Whether Article XI (Schedule) supports Buckner’s claim	Buckner: Schedule language bars holding office past 70 and supports a ban on recall	State: Schedule applies only to incumbents at adoption and is inapplicable	Held: Schedule Article inapplicable; it addressed transition incumbents, not general rule
Whether historical materials (1947 Convention) show framers intended to bar recall	Buckner: Framers considered and rejected recall provisions; silence indicates intent to prohibit	State: Convention considered recall options and deliberately left details to Legislature; silence does not equal prohibition	Held: Record shows framers were aware of recall but chose not to forbid it; legislative role appropriate
Whether recall violates separation of powers by encroaching on Executive appointment power	Buckner (and dissent): Recall reassigns judicial power without Governor appointment, usurping Executive role	State: Recall does not restore the retired judge’s office or prevent filling vacancies; Governor still appoints successors; branches cooperate	Held: No separation-of-powers violation; recall does not usurp appointment power or create impermissible concentration of power

Key Cases Cited

Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts v. Resorts Int’l Hotel, 160 N.J. 505 (1999) (statutes long implemented without challenge are presumed constitutional)
Committee to Recall Robert Menendez v. Wells, 204 N.J. 79 (2010) (use of constitutional text and framers’ record when interpreting recall-related questions)
Franklin v. N.J. Dep’t of Human Servs., 111 N.J. 1 (1988) (statute must be repugnant to the constitution beyond a reasonable doubt to be invalidated)
Gangemi v. Berry, 25 N.J. 1 (1957) (Legislature has broad authority over matters not prohibited by the Constitution)
McCrane v. N.J. Sports & Exposition Auth., 61 N.J. 1 (1972) (constitution provides framework; details may be left to legislature)
Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415 (2006) (challenger must demonstrate unmistakably that statute violates the constitution)
In re Incorporation of Loch Arbour, 25 N.J. 258 (1957) (long, unchallenged statutory practice supports presumption of constitutionality)
State v. Celmer, 80 N.J. 405 (1979) (de facto officer doctrine preserves acts of officials performed in good faith prior to invalidation)