Michael Landers, David Guthrie, Kenneth Johnson, and J.w. Looney, Appellants v. Gail H. Stone, Exec — Baker, J…

Summary

Justice Baker concurred in the majority’s rejection of Judge Landers’s declaratory-judgment challenge, emphasizing that the retirement-benefit condition was known when judges sought office, did not confiscate a vested benefit, and left Landers with a choice between continuing to serve and retiring with benefits. She also stated that the circuit court correctly upheld the challenged policy and suggested that the remaining appellants lacked standing. The dissenting opinions argued that the provisions effectively force experienced judges to retire and violate constitutional qualifications and equal protection, while Justice Hart would have dismissed the action for lack of standing.