A group of Arkansas circuit judges is asking the state's justices to review the law that takes retirement benefits away from judges who are elected at age 70 or older.
Last Friday, an attorney for four judges filed an appeal with the Arkansas Supreme Court of a December decision by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza that dismissed their lawsuit and upheld the state's judicial retirement law.
Union County Circuit Judge Michael Landers, joined by three other judges, filed suit in Pulaski County last year, arguing that the decades-old age limit presents a "chilling" effect for judges who want to continue to serve on the bench. They also said the law violated the state constitution.
The judges' attorney, Gerry Schultze, argued last year that the provision, enacted in 1965, is superseded by the passage in 2000 of Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution.
That amendment spells out the qualifications for judges. Schultze argued that the state law requiring forfeiture of retirement benefits was an indirect effort by legislators to control the bench and that imposing the forfeiture of judicial retirement benefits was "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion."
"The Arkansas Constitution sets out that there are eligibility requirements to serve as a judge and none of them have to do with age," Schultze said. "For the Legislature to impose a penalty on an eligible person who is able to serve as a judge ... it's crystal clear, that when you impose a penalty that's so disproportionate and so severe that the only possible intention is to basically do an end run around the constitution ... it's unconstitutional."
Judges pay 5 to 6 percent of their salary into the state retirement program; the state pays an amount equal to 12 percent of payroll. Circuit judges can be vested in retirement in eight years and can obtain full retirement benefits after 25 years of service. They are eligible for up to 80 percent of their salary upon retirement.
Schultze said Monday that his case is similar to the challenge to the state's voter identification law, which required voters to present a valid government photo ID at the polls. That requirement was rejected by the Supreme Court shortly before the 2014 election, after the court found that the requirement placed another qualification on voters that was not included in the constitution.
State attorneys argued before Piazza that the law was valid because judges were not barred from running for re-election if they were at least 70; any money they paid into the system would be refunded. They also argued that the law served a government interest in getting judges to voluntarily retire so that the state's judiciary is not housing judges who are no longer fit to serve.
Metro on 02/02/2016