Under Mr. Bonacic’s plan, judges on the Court of Appeals and State Supreme Courts would be allowed to work until 80, provided they were certified as competent every two years. Judges on the Court of Appeals, however, would be transferred after age 70, to a State Supreme Court.

But because the Bonacic bill would have to be passed by both chambers — twice, in separately elected sessions — and then approved by voters, the earliest that it could take effect would be 2016. And that would be too late for two judges on the Court of Appeals: Chief Judge Lippman, who turns 70 in 2015, and Judge Robert S. Smith, who turns 70 in 2014.

The fate of the two bills has caused some whispers in the Capitol because Mr. Lippman is friendly with Sheldon Silver, the speaker of the Democrat-dominated Assembly. The two men grew up on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, where Mr. Silver still lives, and Mr. Silver was an ardent supporter of the judge’s nomination as chief judge by Gov. David A. Paterson in 2009.

Chief Judge Lippman, who has established himself as a solid liberal voice, declined to comment.

But Mike Whyland, a spokesman for Mr. Silver, said the friendship between the speaker and the judge had nothing to do with the proposed extension of the retirement age. “This is a broad based, politics-neutral bill that covers many judges and will be voted on by the public,” Mr. Whyland said, referring to the Weinstein measure.

Mr. Bonacic initially said he had offered his bill — which had passed the Senate once before, in 2011, but died in the Assembly — because he had heard “too many concerns from other judges that they are not included” in the Assembly version. But late last month, Mr. Bonacic suggested that he was leaning toward a compromise: allowing both bills to the Senate floor.

Still, he said, there was no consensus within the Republican conference in the Senate on the issue. “I am not so sure the people want judges serving until they are 80,” he said.

Langdon Chapman, an aide to Senator Bonacic, added that his bill, and its longer legislative timetable, was not related to Mr. Lippman’s looming retirement.