A lawsuit by a Union County circuit judge that argues judicial retirement laws violate his constitutional rights has no basis in law and should be thrown out, state lawyers argued in a Monday pleading in Pulaski County Circuit Court.
Under a 50-year-old law, Arkansas Code 24-8-215, state judges who are elected to office at age 70 or older lose the state retirement benefits they accrued while on the bench. Judges who turn 70 while in office can finish their term without losing their benefits. Retired judges who are appointed to office have their benefits suspended while they serve.
Judge Michael Landers of El Dorado, who just turned 69, sued the Arkansas Judicial Retirement System last month, stating that he wants to run again next year.
But if he's returned by voters to the 13th Judicial Circuit bench, Landers would have to forfeit his retirement benefits. He's been a circuit judge for more than 10 1/2 years.
The case is in Pulaski County because the retirement program is headquartered in Little Rock.
Circuit judges are vested in their retirement in eight years and are eligible for full retirement benefits after 25 years of service, with the potential to receive up to 80 percent of their salaries.
Judges are required to pay in 5 percent to 6 percent of their salaries to the program. The state also contributes an amount equal to 12 percent of the annual judicial payroll to the program.
But in Monday's filing, the Arkansas attorney general's office, representing the retirement system, disputed that Landers has grounds to sue, saying the provision in question does not affect him because he's not 70 and hasn't won another term in office.
He'd have to win that next term in order to sue, according to the pleadings by Assistant Attorney General Colin Jorgensen.
"The allegations in Judge Landers' complaint make it clear that his claim is contingent upon the happening of hypothetical future events, and there is no actual prejudice to his position today, but merely the speculative possibility of prejudice to his position in the future," Jorgensen stated in his brief.
"If these hypothetical contingencies occur in the future, Judge Landers may then be able to challenge the ... retirement provisions and present a justifiable controversy for the court to decide. Today, Judge Landers seeks an advisory opinion based upon speculative future contingencies."
Jorgensen has petitioned for summary judgment from the court, arguing that both sides agree on the essential facts of the case but dispute how the law is applied.
He argued that the state has the law on its side and should prevail without the need for a trial.
No hearing has been scheduled, but Landers will get an opportunity to present a written response.
Jorgensen also disputed that any of Landers' rights under the state and federal constitutions are in jeopardy through the retirement provision.
The retirement restrictions do not prevent anyone from running for office, whatever their age, and would not stop anyone from holding office, he wrote.
And if Landers did win another term, the money he had put into the program would be refunded so he would not have lost whatever he put in, Jorgensen stated.
The judge also does not have any basic rights at stake because he cannot claim he has a constitutional right to hold or run for office, Jorgensen argued.
The Arkansas Legislature has good reason to adopt laws that encourage judges to retire around age 70, and because lawmakers acted with that "rational basis," the retirement law must be interpreted as legal, Jorgensen stated in his brief.
"First, encouraging judges who have surpassed the age of 70 to voluntarily retire rationally furthers the state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of the judiciary by removing from the bench those judges whose fitness for judicial service has diminished with age without the necessity of selectively removing such judges through formal disciplinary and disability proceedings," he wrote.
"[Also] encouraging voluntary retirement of judges over age 70 also furthers the state's legitimate interest in high performance by the judiciary by assuring greater opportunities for younger attorneys to take the bench as judges."
Metro on 08/11/2015