|
REDISTRICTING
AND VOTING RIGHTS ACT PRACTICE
One of Nielsen Merksamer's specialties is redistricting and voting
rights law. The law governing redistricting is particularly complex
and constantly changing. The 2000 Census triggered the need for
each state to redraw legislative and congressional district boundaries.
Many counties, cities, school districts, hospital districts and
water districts likewise will be required to redraw their electoral
boundaries. Significant policy implications must be considered along
with complex legal requirements when implementing a new redistricting
plan. Nielsen Merksamer is uniquely qualified and experienced to
provide legal assistance and representation in developing, implementing
and litigating redistricting plans.
Nielsen Merksamer's
redistricting and voting rights practice includes:
- Advising
governmental entities on compliance with the complex and ever-changing
state and federal legal requirements in redrawing district boundaries
while at the same time addressing the unique policy concerns of
each jurisdiction.
- Working
closely with public agencies and their demographic and other consultants
to address competing interests, develop a process for a successful
redistricting, and develop solutions to seemingly conflicting
political demands and legal criteria.
- Preparing
and processing preclearance submissions to the United States Attorney
General pursuant to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
- Litigating
the legality of redistricting plans under the federal Constitution,
state statutes, and federal Voting Rights Act.
SUMMARY OF PRACTICE
Selected Year 2001 Redistricting Projects
- State of
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Legal advice concerning
all aspects of the first ever citizen-commission redistricting
of the state's Congressional and legislative districts including
United States Attorney General preclearance under the federal
Voting Rights Act.
- Senate of
the State of Florida. Legal advice concerning all aspects of the
state's Congressional and state Senatorial redistricting including
United States Attorney General preclearance under the federal
Voting Rights Act; special litigation counsel in state and federal
courts defending against constitutional and Voting Rights Act
challenges to the plans.
- County of
Merced, California: Legal advice concerning all aspects of the
redistricting of the county's supervisorial districts including
United States Attorney General preclearance under the federal
Voting Rights Act.
- County of
Monterey, California: Special counsel with regard to United States
Attorney General precleearance under the federal Voting Rights
Act.
- Legal counsel
to numerous other counties, boards, college districts, school
districts, water districts in California and Arizona who are required
to redistrict after the 2000 Census. (See attached list of selected
clients.)
Selected
Year 2000 Redistricting and Litigation Projects
- California
Administrative Office of the Courts: Obtained United States Attorney
General preclearance for the unification of California's trial
courts. The firm also obtained preclearance of statewide constitutional
and statutory amendments (Prop. 220, Prop. 191, S.B. 2139) and
the Rules of Court enabling trial court unification.
- County of
Monterey and County of Kings: Obtained United States Attorney
General preclearance of the unification of their superior and
municipal courts, thereby eliminating antiquated district electoral
systems for judges and replacing them with county-wide elections.
- County of
Monterey Municipal Court: Obtained preclearance of the consolidation
of the municipal and justice courts. Preclearance terminated the
action, Lopez v. Monterey County, 525 U.S. 266 (1999). The firm
also represented the court in the litigation which was an enforcement
action under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
- Upper San
Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District: Defeated a motion for
a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed under section 2 of
the Voting Rights Act to enjoin elections and compel interdecennial
redistricting of a large water district. (United States v. Upper
San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, CV 00-07903-AHM (BQRx),
filed July 2000.)
- Fresno Irrigation
District: Assisted this large irrigation district to revise and
update its electoral system in compliance with federal and state
laws concerning redistricting and voting rights. The electoral
system had not been updated for decades
Summary of
1990s Redistricting Projects and Litigation
- Advised
numerous counties, cities, school districts, water districts,
irrigation districts, etc. on implementation of new electoral
districts and redistricting plans to comply with federal statutory
and constitutional requirements after the 1990 Census. This required
working closely with planning officials and demographic consultants
to developed a public process to address competing interests and
ensure a successful and legally defensible process.
- Developed
and lobbied for the enactment of special local legislation to
resolve unique redistricting issues.
- Represented
local governmental agencies defending against Voting Rights Act
section 5 enforcement actions.
- Advised
numerous local governmental agencies on the requirements of section
5 of the Voting Rights Act including preparation and successful
processing of preclearance submissions to U.S. Attorney General.
- Represented
numerous local governmental agencies in the 1990s defending redistricting
and electoral plans under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,
and the federal and state Constitutions and statutes.
- Represented
the State Board of Equalization before the California Supreme
Court and its redistricting commission in the 1990s statewide
redistricting dispute involving the Voting Rights Act and constitutional
issues. (Wilson v. Eu, 1 Cal.4th 708 (1992).)
Legal Counsel to Public Agencies on Redistricting Process
- Currently
provide legal advice and representation to numerous jurisdictions
in the preliminary stages of the 2001 redistricting process including
Arizona’s new Independent Redistricting Commission.
- Advised
and assisted in the preparation of a redistricting plan for the
State Board of Equalization for presentation to the special masters
in connection with litigation concerning California's 1990s statewide
redistricting.
- Advised
numerous counties, cities, school districts, water districts,
irrigation districts, etc. on implementation of new electoral
districts and redistricting plans to comply with federal statutory
and constitutional requirements after the 1990 Census. This required
working closely with planning officials and demographic consultants
to developed a public process to address competing interests and
ensure a successful and legally defensible process.
- Advised
numerous local governmental agencies on the requirements of section
5 of the Voting Rights Act including preparation and successful
processing of preclearance submissions to U.S. Attorney General.
- Represented
numerous local governmental agencies (school districts, municipalities,
counties) in the 1990s defending redistricting and electoral plans
under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and the federal and
state Constitutions and statutes.
- Represented
the State Board of Equalization before the California Supreme
Court and its redistricting commission in the 1990s statewide
redistricting dispute involving the Voting Rights Act and constitutional
issues. (Wilson v. Eu, 1 Cal.4th 708 (1992).)
REPRESENTATIVE REDISTRICTING
AND VOTING RIGHTS MATTERS
State
of Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Established
by constitutional amendment in 2000, the firm provided legal
services, including litigation services, to the commission with
regard to redistricting and voting rights law in this first
ever citizen-commission redistricting of the State of Arizona
Congressional and Legislative districts.
Senate
of the State of Florida: Legal advice concerning all aspects
of the state's Congressional and state Senatorial redistricting
including United States Attorney General preclearance under
the federal Voting Rights Act; special litigation counsel in
state and federal courts defending against constitutional and
Voting Rights Act challenges to the plans.
Administrative
Office of the Courts: The firm represented the California
Administrative Office of the Courts in seeking federal Voting
Rights Act preclearance for implementation of Proposition 220,
Proposition 191 and other statutory and regulatory amendments
in California's section 5 counties. Proposition 220, Proposition
191 and the related legislation and regulations provide for
unification of trial courts.
United
States v. Upper San Gabriel Valley Water District, United
States District Court, Central District of California, Case
No. CV-00-7903 AHM (BQRx): The firm represents the water district
in defending against claims of vote dilution under section 2
of the federal Voting Rights Act. The firm has also been retained
to assist the water district in revising its electoral system
under the 2000 Census.
Lopez
v. Monterey County: United States District Court, Northern
District of California: The firm represented the Monterey County
Municipal Court in this litigation under section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act concerning the formation of the court. The case presented
issues of first impression and resulted in two direct appeals
to the United States Supreme Court. Lopez v. Monterey County,
519 U.S. 9 (1996) and 525 U.S. 266 (1999). The firm also represented
the court in obtaining preclearance of numerous justice and municipal
court consolidations and expansions over a period of nearly 20
years. Thereafter, the firm assisted the court in preclearing
unification of its municipal and superior courts under Proposition
220.
City of
Hanford: The firm represented the City with regard to its
2001 redistricting and United States Attorney General preclearance
under section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act.
City of
Surprise, Arizona: The firm represented the City with regard
to its 2002 redistricting and United States Attorney General preclearance
under section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act.
County
of Merced: The firm represented the County with regard to
its 2001 supervisorial redistricting and United States Attorney
General preclearance under section 5 of the federal Voting Rights
Act.
Merced
College: The firm represents the College with regard to its
2001 redistricting and United States Attorney General preclearance
under section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act.
College
of the Sequoias: The firm represents the College with regard
to its 2001 redistricting and United States Attorney General preclearance
under section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act.
County
of Tulare: The firm was special counsel to the County for
its 2001 redistricting.
County
of Tulare Office of Education: The firm is special counsel
to the County Office of Education for its 2001 redistricting and
United States Attorney General preclearance under section 5 of
the federal Voting Rights Act.
Riverdale
Unified School District and Kings Canyon Unified School District:
The firm represents those school districts with regard to their
2001 redistricting.
County
of Monterey: The firm was special counsel to the County with
regard to its 2001 redistricting of its supervisorial districts.
Wilson
v. Eu, 1 Cal.4th 708 (1992): In this case concerning the 1990s
statewide redistricting, the firm represented a statewide taxing
authority, the State Board of Equalization. The major focus in
the case was compliance with the Voting Rights Act provisions
concerning minority electoral opportunities, as well as conformity
with state constitutional requirements.
Yrigollen
v. City of Hanford, United States District Court, Eastern
District of California: The firm defended the City of Hanford
in a lawsuit under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act seeking
to compel preclearance submission, shorten the terms in office
of all city council members, force court-ordered districting,
and require special elections immediately. The lawsuit grew out
of the failure to preclear 20 years of annexations which had significantly
enlarged the city's corporate boundaries and electorate. The firm
represented the city before the United States Attorney General
in obtaining preclearance of these annexations. In connection
with the preclearance, the firm assisted the city in establishing
a district electoral system and obtaining preclearance for the
new system. Following resolution of the preclearance issues, the
firm represented the city in opposing a demand by plaintiffs for
very high attorneys fees and negotiated a very favorable settlement
for the city.
Espino
v. Cutler-Orosi Unified School District, United States District
Court, Eastern District of California: The firm represented the
school district in its defense against claims that its residency
trustee area/at-large electoral system violated section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act. The firm also represented the school district
in establishing a new district election system and in opposing
and resolving plaintiffs' demand for attorneys fees.
Reyes v.
Dinuba Elementary School District and Elizondo v. Dinuba
High School District, United States District Court, Eastern
District of California. The firm represented the school districts
in companion cases defending against claims that the at-large
electoral systems violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The firm also represented the school districts in establishing
district election systems and in opposing and resolving plaintiffs'
demand for attorneys fees.
Sanger
Unified School District: The firm represented the school district
on Voting Rights Act issues including the establishment of single-member
trustee areas and advice concerning the special Education Code
election procedures.
Fresno
Irrigation District: The firm represented the irrigation district
on Voting Rights Act and constitutional and state law issues in
realigning its director division boundaries.
Kings County
Water District: The firm represented the water district on
Voting Rights Act issues, realigning its director division boundaries,
and section 5 preclearance for the realignment. The representation
also involved preclearance for numerous historical annexations
and deannexations of territory, which had never been precleared.
The City
of Corcoran: The firm represented the City of Corcoran on
Voting Rights Act issues including establishment of single-member
districts, the electoral issues pertaining thereto, and section
5 preclearance compliance.
Riverdale
Elementary School District and Riverdale High School District:
The firm represented these school districts before the State Board
of Education and United States Attorney General and in the California
Legislature on unification, electoral and Voting Rights Act issues
including associated legislative matters, establishing electoral
districts for the election of members to the Board of Trustees,
and preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Alta Irrigation
District: The firm represented this irrigation district on
electoral matters and Voting Rights Act issues including associated
legislative amendments, expansion of the board of directors, realignment
of the electoral division and preclearance under Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act.
Caruthers
Elementary School District: The firm represented this school
district before the State Board of Education on unification, electoral
and Voting Rights Act issues including associated legislative
matters, and establishing electoral districts for the election
of members to the new unified Board of Trustees.
State of
California Municipal and Superior Courts in and for the County
of Kings: The firm also represented this county court system
in obtaining preclearance of the unification of its municipal
and superior courts under Proposition 220. In the unification
proceedings, the district electoral system for the municipal court
was eliminated and all judges of the unified trial courts are
now elected countywide.
BIOGRAPHIES
MARGUERITE
MARY LEONI is a partner of the firm specializing in legal counseling
and civil litigation relating to redistricting and voting rights
questions, school district reorganizations, campaign, government
and initiative/referendum law. Her practice includes both trial
and appellate practice. Marguerite has substantial expertise and
experience in administrative preclearance practice in the United
States Department of Justice under Section 5 of the Federal Voting
Rights Act. She has been a guest lecturer on the Voting Rights Act
at Hastings College of the Law and guest speaker at numerous forums
concerning voting rights and election issues. Marguerite has represented
numerous state agencies, municipalities, counties, school districts
and other special districts on districting, redistricting and electoral
matters. She has assisted in all phases of such cases including
design of plans, the public hearing process, analysis of proposed
alternatives, enactment procedures, referenda, districting and redistricting,
preparing and advocating preclearance submissions to the U. S. Department
of Justice when required, and defending federal court litigation
concerning the legality of electoral systems under the federal constitution
and Voting Rights Act. Marguerite represented the California Administrative
Office of the Courts on federal Voting Rights Act issues and electoral
questions pertaining to trial court unification in California. She
also represented the Florida Senate in designing that state's Senate
and Congressional districts, Voting Rights Act preclearance, and
in defending against ensuing state and federal court challenges.
She currently represents the consultant to Arizona's Independent
Redistricting Commission in designing redistricting plans for Arizona's
state legislative and congressional seats. Marguerite graduated
from the University of California, Berkeley, where she earned both
Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees. In 1981, she received
her law degree from the University of California, Hastings College
of the Law. She was on the editorial staff of the Hastings Law Journal
to which she was selected for academic achievement. She has published
articles about Voting Rights Act issues and was also a panelist
at the University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Governmental
Studies, 2000 Redistricting Conference, and California State Association
of Counties 2000 Legislative Conference, Redistricting Session.
JAMES R.
PARRINELLO is the senior litigation partner and has represented
clients in redistricting and voting rights matters including litigation
since 1980. He has argued cases successfully before the United States
and California Supreme Courts and courts of appeal. He is an expert
on voting rights and reapportionment, the legality of governmental
regulations, and state and local initiatives. A representative list
of reported cases Jim has argued include Citizens Against Rent
Control v. Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981) [successfully argued
that ordinance limiting contributions to ballot measure campaigns
violates the First Amendment]; Wilson v. Eu, 1 Cal.4th 707
(1992) [represented California State Board of Equalization in a
lawsuit establishing unique criteria for redistricting of state
taxing authority]; Assembly v. Deukmejian 30 Cal.3d 638 (1982)
[successfully defended legality of referendum petitions against
redistricting plan]; Pala Band of Mission Indians v. Board of
Supervisors, 54 Cal.App.4th 565 (1997) [successfully defended
legality of San Diego County initiative establishing zoning and
general plan amendments]; San Francisco Forty-Niners v. Nishioka,
75 Cal.App.4th 637 (1999), rev. denied, [successful pre-election
challenge to initiative petition which established important legal
precedent under the First Amendment]. Jim is a graduate of the University
of San Francisco and the University of San Francisco School of Law
where he was the class valedictorian. He is a member of the Litigation
and Government Litigation Sections of the American Bar Association.
He was a guest panelist at the 2000 redistricting
conference sponsored by the Institute of Governmental Studies at
the University of California, Berkeley. Jim was an appointee to
the California Commission on Ballot Initiatives, and has served
on the faculty of the Hastings College of Trial and Appellate Advocacy.
|
