Experience

Redistricting/Voting Rights

Redistricting Counsel: advised several dozen counties, cities, school districts and special districts on state and federal law governing redistricting following the release of 2010 Census and again following the 2020 Census. Special counsel to the New Mexico Citizens Redistricting Committee in 2021.

California Voting Rights Act Litigation: represented over a dozen jurisdictions in suits brought under the California Voting Rights Act and advised dozens more regarding the process for moving to district-based voting to avoid litigation.

Tate v. City of Morgan Hill, Case No. 22CV396857 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. 2022): represented local citizens in a successful challenge to the redistricting map adopted by the Morgan Hill City Council on the ground that it failed to comply with requirements of the FAIR MAPS Act.

Sanchez v. City of Martinez, Case No. MSC-18-02219 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. 2020): successful defense of city council districting map against claims that it violated California Elections Code requirements.

Ariz. Legislature v. Ariz. Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787, 135 S. Ct. 2652, 192 L. Ed. 2d 704 (2015): represented former California Governors Deukmejian, Wilson and Schwarzenegger; the California Chamber of Commerce; Charles Munger, Jr.; and Bill Mundell, as amici curiae on a brief that successfully urged the Supreme Court to reject a challenge to congressional districting by an independent commission, rather than a state’s legislature; the majority opinion quoted (without attribution) a passage from the firm’s brief discussing the original meaning of the term “Legislature” as reflected in founding-era dictionaries.

League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 126 S. Ct. 2594, 165 L. Ed. 2d 609 (2006): represented amici curiae on a brief successfully urging the Supreme Court to reject proposed rule that would have held voluntary mid-decade redistricting to be unconstitutional exercise of legislative authority.

Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 133 S. Ct. 2612, 186 L. Ed. 2d 651 (2013): represented the County of Merced, California, as amicus curiae in support of no party, preemptively defending the County’s recent bailout from Section 5 coverage against anticipated attack on the basis that the Department of Justice permitted the bailout to save Section 5. The firm had previously represented the County is the first-ever successful “bailout” from Section 5 coverage in the State of California. Merced County was, by far, the largest jurisdiction ever to obtain bailout, covering the County itself, six cities, and nearly 100 school districts and special districts.

Lopez v. Merced County, 473 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (three-judge court) & later unpublished opinions: represented Merced County in successfully defeating multiple allegations that the County had violated the special provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act and ultimately obtained summary judgment in the County’s favor.