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

Summary

Chief Justice Brill, dissenting, would hold that the judicial-retirement forfeiture statute is unconstitutional because it operates as an impermissible forfeiture and effectively forces experienced judges to choose between continued service and vested retirement benefits. He reasoned that the statute imposes an indirect qualification for judicial office and harshly penalizes judges who seek reelection, despite existing mechanisms for addressing judicial incapacity. Justice Danielson, dissenting, likewise would invalidate the provisions as violating constitutional qualifications and equal protection; Justices Baker and Hart, concurring, agreed with affirmance but offered additional reasoning concerning the statute and standing.