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

Summary

Justice Danielson dissented from the majority's conclusion that statutory forfeiture provisions governing judicial-retirement benefits were constitutional. He would hold that the provisions indirectly impose an additional qualification for judicial office, contrary to the Arkansas Constitution, and violate equal protection because they force experienced judges who reach seventy to choose between continued service and vested retirement benefits while permitting first-time judicial candidates of the same or greater age to serve. Chief Justice Brill separately dissented on forfeiture and constitutional grounds, while Justices Baker and Hart concurred in the judgment but advanced alternative reasoning concerning the statute and standing.