Michael Landers, David Guthrie, Kenneth Johnson, and J.w. Looney, Appellants v. Gail H. Stone, Executive Director Of…

Summary

The court affirmed summary judgment upholding statutory provisions that allow judges to continue serving after age seventy but condition continued receipt of judicial-retirement benefits on retirement by specified points in service. It held that the provisions do not add an unconstitutional qualification for judicial office, satisfy rational-basis review, and do not establish a due-process violation; it also rejected the constructive-discharge claim. Justice Danielson and Chief Justice Brill dissented, while Justices Baker and Hart concurred on separate grounds.