Our Firm
Professionals
Experience
Clients
News
Essential Ethics
Contact

Home > Experience > Successfully advised clients through complex ethics investigations and audits.

Experience

Successfully advised clients through complex ethics investigations and audits.

Successfully advised clients through complex ethics investigations and audits.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Shirley N. Weber, Case No. S285602 (Cal. Sup. Ct.) and multiple other proceedings: on behalf of Real Parties in Interest, successful defense of multiple pre-election lawsuits attempting to remove the Protect Patients Now Act, Prop. 34 (2024), from the ballot on various state and federal constitutional grounds.
Ashoke Talukdar v. Shirley N. Weber, Case No. 24WM00018 (Sacramento County Super. Ct. 2024): on behalf of Real Parties in Interest, obtained complete defense verdict against multiple claims that the ballot arguments in favor of Prop. 34 (2024) were false or misleading.
Measure J, Sonoma County: general counsel to successful campaign to oppose prohibiting certain farming operations and requiring existing operations to phase out within three years.
Measure X, San Benito County: successful defense of lawsuit against the ballot argument in favor of the measure; and general counsel and treasurer to successful campaign to approve a lease, with the option to purchase, certain San Benito Health Care District real property.
Measure P, City of San Rafael: initiative author and counsel to successful campaign to authorize a special parcel tax to fund the construction of a new public library and community center.
Coalition for Richmond’s Future v. Pamela Christian, Case No. N24-1181 (Contra Costa Super. Ct. 2024): successful result in pre-election litigation striking misleading and biased portions of a ballot label on a local measure in violation of California Elections Code requirements.
Ashoke Talukdar v. Shirley N. Weber, Case No. 24WM00018 (Sacramento County Super. Ct. 2024): complete defense verdict against multiple claims that the ballot arguments in favor of Prop. 34 (2024) were false or misleading.
Castellanos v. State of California (2024) 16 Cal.5th 588: co-counsel on successful defense of the Protect App Based Driver’s Act, Prop. 22 (2020), against claims that it interfered with the Legislature’s “plenary” power over workers compensation per Cal. Const. art. XIV, § 2 and violated Cal. Const. art. II, § 8(d), the single-subject rule.
AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Shirley N. Weber, Case No. S285602 (Cal. Sup. Ct.) and multiple other proceedings: successful defense of multiple pre-election lawsuits attempting to remove the Protect Patients Now Act, Prop. 34 (2024), the Protect Patients Act, from the ballot on various state and federal constitutional grounds.
California Chamber of Commerce v. California Privacy Protection Agency, Case No. 34-2023-80004106 (Sacramento County Super. Ct. 2023): obtained writ of mandate prohibiting state agency from its effort to disregard one year period between adoption of regulations under Prop. 24 (2020) and enforcement of those regulations pursuant to the phased implementation and enforcement plan adopted by the voters; although reversed in part by Court of Appeal (California Privacy Protection Agency v. Sup. Ct. (2024) 99 Cal. App. 5th 705), the one-year stay of enforcement was secured.
Save Local Restaurants v. Hagen, Case No. 34-2022-80004062 (Sacramento County Super. Ct. 2023): on behalf of statewide referendum proponents, obtained TRO and injunction prohibiting state agency and others from enforcing referred law during the petition signature verification process and, if/when the referendum qualified for the ballot, unless the challenged statute is approved by the voters at a statewide election.
Viola v. Caruso Management Co. LTD, Case No. B323596 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Oct. 2023): co-counsel in successful defense of claims against shopping center owner aimed at expanding Pruneyard v. Robins to require public access for First Amendment activities beyond the center’s reasonable time, place, and manner policies based on mall owner’s own use of the property.
Bonnyview Bechelli Coalition v. City of Redding, Case No. C095557 (Cal. Ct. App., 3d Dist., Aug. 2022): successfully defended initiative to approve new regional commercial retail center in City of Redding against California constitutional claims, including Cal. Const. art. II, § 12 (naming a private entity to have a power, function, or duty) and Cal. Const. art. II, § 8(d) (single subject).
Agenbroad v. Padilla, Case No. 34-2020-80003542 (Sacramento County Super. Ct. 2020): on behalf of referendum proponents and small business owners, obtained relief confirming that filing a statewide referendum petition with sufficient signatures prima facie immediately triggers suspension of the challenged statute unless and until it fails to qualify or is approved by the voters at a statewide election.
Save Local Restaurants v. Hagen, Case No. 34-2022-80004062 (Sacramento County Super. Ct. 2023): on behalf of statewide referendum proponents, obtained TRO and injunction prohibiting state agency and others from enforcing referred law during the petition signature verification process and, if/when the referendum qualified for the ballot, unless the challenged statute is approved by the voters at a statewide election.
Measures Q and R, City of Laguna Beach: general counsel and treasurer to successful campaign to oppose two anti-commercial land use and development measures.
Measure HR, City of Sierra Madre: general counsel and treasurer to successful campaign to oppose initiative measure aimed at blocking new housing opportunities.
Viola v. Caruso Management Co. LTD, Case No. B323596 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Oct. 2023): co-counsel in successful defense of claims against shopping center owner aimed at expanding Pruneyard v. Robins to require public access for First Amendment activities beyond the center’s reasonable time, place, and manner policies based on mall owner’s own use of the property.
Wiedman v. Weber, Case No. 34-2022-80003923 (Sacramento County Super. Ct. 2022): obtained judgment and writ of mandate requiring revisions to ballot arguments against Prop. 30 (programs to reduce air pollution and prevent wildfires) relating to electric vehicle energy demands.
Bonnyview Bechelli Coalition v. City of Redding, Case No. C095557 (Cal. Ct. App., 3d Dist., Aug. 2022): drafted, qualified, and successfully defended initiative to approve new regional commercial retail center in City of Redding against California constitutional claims, including Cal. Const. art. II, § 12 (naming a private entity to have a power, function, or duty) and Cal. Const. art. II, § 8(d) (single subject).
Treasurer and legal counsel to a variety of political action committees, independent expenditure campaigns, and ballot measure committees.
Develop and implement nationwide ethics compliance programs for dozens of organizations ranging from Fortune 500 companies to grassroots nonprofit organizations.
Design client training materials and provide regular compliance trainings to key employees.
Nielsen Merksamer attorneys have vast experience working alongside California state regulatory agencies and are well-versed in administrative law. We have provided countless clients with counsel on crafting effective draft regulations, were closely involved in reviewing and commenting on the California Attorney General’s regulations, and will be closely involved in reviewing and commenting on the California Privacy Protection Agency’s proposed regulations.
Our privacy attorneys are routinely invited to brief practitioners and industry groups about California data privacy laws and regulations. Our briefings include comprehensive overviews of privacy laws and regulations, as well as practical advice to protect against enforcement.
Our privacy attorneys work closely with clients on compiling data inventories, reviewing or drafting privacy and global data security policies to comply with the new and existing California privacy rules, and training clients on the provisions of California’s novel privacy regime.
Our team has developed a specialty in advising numerous PAC and ballot measure clients on the impact of the new privacy rules on their activities, especially with regard to these groups’ collection, use, and sharing of data on campaign supporters and potential voters.
Our attorneys were closely involved in the monitoring, lobbying, and drafting of the California Privacy Rights Act as it made its way through the California Legislature, including an attorney who was instrumental in advising on the drafting of the CCPA during her time as Chief Consultant for the California Assembly’s Privacy & Consumer Protection Committee.
Nielsen Merksamer brings decades of experience and perspective to the government contracting process, assisting counsel identify, understand, and mitigate risks that arise under the panoply of procurement, ethics, and compliance laws surrounding the government contracting process, which may differ at the federal, state, and local levels, including:
Our firm has developed particular knowledge and specialty in advising firms and investors in the financial industry, including those seeking to invest public funds, their executives, and political action committees.
With clients representing industries intensely regulated by every level of government, our team resolves issues, aids in preparing various disclosures and certifications, and helps ensure ongoing compliance.
We have longstanding relationships with ethics and regulatory agencies and represent clients in audits and enforcements.
Nunn v. Wimberly, Case No. N19-1733 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. 2019)
Measure Y, Town of Danville (Magee Ranch)
Measure F, Town of Ross
Measure B, San Diego County
Sanchez v. City of Martinez, Case No. MSC-18-02219 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. 2020)
Agenbroad v. Padilla, Case No. 34-2020-80003542 (Sacramento County Super. Ct. 2020)
Arata v. Cooper, Case No. A159487 (Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist., Nov. 2020)
Molloy v. Vu, 42 Cal. App. 5th 746 (2019)
STATE & LOCAL TAX ADVOCACY – Representative Matters – Post EJM
CES – Tax Advocacy
Yes on 25, Citizens for an On-Time Budget v. Super. Ct. 189 Cal. App. 4th 1445 (2010): Developed the legal strategy which forced the Attorney General and proponents of Proposition 25 (2010) to concede that Proposition 25, if enacted, could not be used to circumvent the two-thirds legislative vote requirement for the adoption of new or higher state taxes.
Zeiderman v. Padilla, No. 34-2016-80002412 (Super. Ct. Sacramento County): As counsel to the campaign opposing Proposition 56 on the November 2016 statewide ballot, successfully challenged the Attorney General’s title and summary in order to clarify the measure’s adverse impact on state school funding.
Initiative I-1634 (2018): Principal coauthor of successful statewide initiative statute in the State of Washington that prohibits local governments from taxing groceries.
Proposition 11 (2018): Author of successful statewide initiative statute that modifies California labor laws to ensure that private paramedics and EMTs are available without interruption to respond to emergency calls.
Measure B, Redding (Turtle Bay Hotel): general counsel and treasurer to winning campaign opposing referendum against hotel development project to benefit the nonprofit Turtle Bay Exploration Park in the City of Redding.
Garrett v. Halverson, Case No. 37-2014-00029221 (San Diego Super. Ct. 2014): successfully challenged statements in ballot arguments against Measure H in Escondido as false and misleading.
Save Olympic Valley (Squaw Valley, CA): general counsel and treasurer to successful effort to oppose the proposed incorporation, through Placer County LAFCO, of the Town of Olympic Valley.
Chargers/Raiders Stadium Initiative: initiative co-author and general counsel and treasurer to successful effort to approve the development of an NFL stadium in the City of Carson, California.
Ordaz v. Pope, Case No. BS164364 (Los Angeles Super. Ct. 2016): successful defense of challenged statements in ballot arguments supporting Measure HH in Beverly Hills, including successful anti-SLAPP motion and award of attorneys’ fees.
James v. Schmidt, Case No. 16-CV-299134 (Santa Clara Super. Ct. 2016): successfully challenged statements in ballot arguments supporting Measure C in Cupertino as false and misleading; statements ordered stricken from ballot pamphlet.
Briskman v. Pope, Case No. BS163782 (Los Angeles Super. Ct. 2016): successful challenge to the ballot question prepared for Measure HH in Beverly Hills, resulting in modifications to the ballot question printed on the ballots.
Wilson v. County of Napa, 9 Cal. App. 5th 178 (2017), rev. denied, 2017 Cal. LEXIS 4112 (Cal., May 24, 2017): represented Napa Valley Vintners, Napa Valley Grapegrowers, Winegrowers of Napa County, and Napa County Farm Bureau as amicus curiae in support of the County of Napa in successful defense of the County Registrar of Voters’ rejection of initiative petition that failed to comply with the California Election Code’s “full text” rule.
SPW – Representative Matters
Ballot Measure Chart
CES – Rent Control/Property Rights
CES – Political Law Compliance
CES – Redistricting/Voting Rights
CES – Initiative/Referendum Law
CES – Election Law & Litigation
Assists companies and non-profit entities with legal counsel regarding the filing of federal lobbying reports under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), as well as compliance with the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.
Serves as counsel and professional treasurer for federal and state PACs, as well as ballot measure committees.
Provides counsel regarding state and local gift activity, conflicts of interests and “revolving door” issues.
Counsels Fortune 500 business entities, non-profit organizations and individuals on contribution, lobby and ethics legal and compliance issues nationwide, including the preparation and filing of disclosure filings.
Assists entities and individuals with the development and administration of comprehensive lobby compliance programs, “pay-to-play” compliance programs, and campaign contribution compliance (both corporate and PAC) at the federal, state and local level.
Represents public officials and entities with pending enforcement matters before federal, state and local ethics agencies.
Expertise in political law and ethics issues, including federal, state and local lobby, campaign finance, “pay-to-play,” gift, “revolving door” and ethics laws and compliance.
Ariz. Legislature v. Ariz. Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. __, 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.
Political Reporting Unit #3
Political Reporting Unit #2
Political Reporting Unit #4
Political Reporting Unit #1
California Administrative Office of the Courts (1998): Represented the AOC on voting rights aspects of the unification of California’s trial courts.
The Senate of the State of Florida (2001): Represented the Florida State Senate concerning all aspects of the state’s 2001 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.
STATE & LOCAL TAX ADVOCACY – Representative Matters – Legis & Admin Tax Policy
Lobbying Representative Matters #4
Lobbying Representative Matters #3
Lobbying Representative Matters #2
Litigation Introduction – Representative Matters
ELECTION LAW & LITIGATION – Representative Matters
EDUCATION LAW & GOVERNANCE – Representative Matters
ADMIN Law – Representative Matters
VRA/REDISTRICTING Practice Area Rep Matters – Redistricting
Many of the companies that come to us for counsel appear on the Fortune 500, including industry-leading companies in the technology, finance, pharmaceutical, entertainment, energy, healthcare, transportation, property development, telecommunications, insurance, publishing, and manufacturing sectors.
VRA/REDISTRICTING Practice Area Rep Matters – Litigation
VRA/REDISTRICTING Practice Area Rep Matters – Other Notable Matters
In St. John’s Well Child & Family Center v. Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal. 4th 960 (2010), the firm represented former Governors George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, and Gray Davis; the California Chamber of Commerce; the California Taxpayers’ Association; and the California Business Roundtable as amicus curiae in support of Governor Schwarzenegger’s use of the line-item veto. See pp. 983 & 987 n.24 (quoting our amicus brief).
Modesto Irrigation District, et. al. v. Debra Bowen, Case No. 34-2010-80000478 (Super. Ct. Sacramento County): successful defense of pre-election challenge to statewide ballot measure.
Measures K and J, Moraga: initiative co-author, general counsel and treasurer to campaign involving complex, related land use measures.
Pacific Racing Association v. Bucholz, et al., Case No. RG06273072 (Super. Ct. Alameda County): successful removal of initiative from the ballot due to defects during petition circulation.
Measure U, Napa County: general counsel and treasurer to successful campaign to defeat land use measure with negative countywide implications.
Oak to Ninth Referendum Committee v. City of Oakland, Case No. RG06290487 (Super. Ct. Alameda County): successful removal from the ballot of referendum against Oakland development project due to legal defects identified in the petition.
Measure H, Beverly Hills (Beverly Hilton): general counsel and treasurer to winning campaign opposing referendum against hotel redevelopment project; Kano v. Pope, et. al. (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. 396173), successful lawsuit to strike false and misleading language from ballot arguments against project.
Measure A, Los Gatos (Netflix HQ): initiative co-author, and general counsel and treasurer to successful campaign to allow voters to directly approve the development of a new office and research and development park previously approved by the town, resolving pending and threatened litigation.
Camacho Title, et al. v. Concolino, et al., Case No. 34-2014-80001748 (Super. Ct. Sacramento County): representing the Sacramento Kings as the real party in interest, invalidated an initiative aimed at blocking the financing and construction of the Kings’ new downtown arena.
Larson v. City & County of San Francisco, 192 Cal. App. 4th 1263 (2011): represented the rental property-owners in a successful constitutional challenge to enforcement of numerous provisions of Proposition M (malicious eviction) in San Francisco, and defense of cross-appeal of a judgment enjoining enforcement of one-sided attorneys’ fee provision.
Chris has served as counsel to a number of local ballot measure committees, independent expenditure committees, and political action committees, and he advises a number of corporate and individual donors on compliance with campaign finance laws.
Represented defendant jurisdictions in nearly half of the suits brought under the California Voting Rights Act.
Advised several dozen counties, cities, school districts and special districts on state and federal law governing redistricting following the release of 2010 Census.
In Fisher v. City of Berkeley, 37 Cal. 3d 644 (1985), the firm represented a group of Berkeley property-owners before the California Supreme Court in a case that established that rental property-owners are constitutionally entitled to periodic rent adjustments to offset the erosionary effects of inflation.
Vargas v. City of Salinas, 46 Cal. 4th 1 (2009): represented the California Chamber of Commerce, California Taxpayers’ Association, California Business Roundtable and California Business Properties Association as amici curiae in successfully urging the Supreme Court to reject the appeals court’s holding that the test for illegal expenditure of public funds in connection with ballot measures under Stanson v. Mott, 17 Cal. 3d 206 (1976), is express advocacy rather than a contextual analysis.
Citizens to Save Cal. v. Fair Pol. Pract. Comm’n, 145 Cal. App. 4th 736 (3d Dist. 2006): represented a ballot measure committee in a case that unanimously enjoined an FPPC Regulation seeking to apply campaign contribution limits to such committees in violation of the language of the Political Reform Act and the First Amendment.
Johnson v. Numainville, Case No. RG14736763 (Alameda Super. Ct. 2014): successfully challenged, as illegally biased, ballot label adopted by Berkeley City Council and “impartial” analysis by Berkeley City Attorney)
Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes v. City of Richmond, Case No. 3:12-cv-04545-CRB (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 3, 2012): successfully represented a ballot measure opposition committee in obtaining a preliminary injunction against enforcement of burdensome disclaimer requirements on campaign mailings; the City’s ordinance was then amended to remove the offending provisions.
Served as counsel to the campaign for Proposition 14—the Top Two Candidate Open Primary Act—and since its adoption by the voters in June 2010, has successfully defended the measure against five separate lawsuits seeking to block implementation of the measure, including Rubin v. Padilla, 233 Cal. App. 4th 1128 (1st Dist. 2015), rev. denied, 2015 Cal. LEXIS 2395 (Cal., Apr. 29, 2015), cert. denied, 577 U.S. __ (Oct. 13, 2015) (rejecting First Amendment and Equal Protection challenges by “minor” political parties based on alleged difficulty in reaching the general election ballot); Chamness v. Bowen, 722 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2013) (rejecting constitutional challenge based on rules governing write-in voting and ability to identify with non-qualified political parties); Field v. Bowen, 196 Cal. App. 4th 346 (1st Dist. 2011) (same); Brown v. Bowen, No. 2:12-cv-05547-PA-SP (C.D. Cal. 2012) (rejecting challenge based on Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act); and Milonopoulos v. Bowen, No. 2:14-cv-05973-DOC-VBK (C.D. Cal. 2014) (rejecting challenge based on unsuccessful primary candidate’s inability to appear as a write-in candidate on the general election ballot).
In W. J. Deutsch & Sons, Ltd. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, No. C064038 (Cal. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2010), we represented a national wine distributor in a dispute regarding a national marketing agreement. Following arbitration in which we defeated a $40 million claim for breach of the agreement and obtained a multi-million dollar award on a cross-claim, a superior court judge declined to enforce the award, but we successfully obtained a writ of mandate from the Court of Appeal reinstating the award.
Defending the legality of a San Diego County initiative establishing zoning and general plan amendments for a major sanitary waste facility, in Pala Band of Mission Indians v. Board of Supervisors (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 565
Representing amicus in a successful takings challenge to a 2014 San Francisco ordinance requiring owners to pay evicted tenants two years rent differential between their prior and new housing units
Striking down a Municipal Services Agreement entered into between an Indian Tribe and the City of Plymouth for violating CEQA, in County of Amador v. Ione Band of Miwok Indians, 149 Cal. App. 4th 1089 (2007).
Representing licensees in licensing and accusation proceedings before the California Gambling Control Commission and the Bureau of Gambling Control
Represented amicus curiae in briefing and oral argument before the California Supreme Court in an important elections law case reaffirming the Stanson v Mott doctrine, in Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1
Pre-election invalidation of an initiative petition for containing false representations to prospective signers, in San Francisco 49ers v. Nishioka (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 637
Representing local governments in negotiations and arbitration proceedings regarding appropriate mitigation to be provided as a condition of construction of proposed Indian gaming facilities and casinos
Invalidating Proposition 105, the so-called Public’s Right to Know Act, for violating the California Constitution’s single subject rule, in Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association v. Deukmejian (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 663
Invalidating key provisions of San Francisco’s “anti-harassment” ordinance for violating the judicial powers clause of the California Constitution and the First Amendment, in Larson v. City and County of San Francisco (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1263
Striking down a California Fair Political Practices Commission regulation restricting contributions to candidate controlled ballot measure committees, because it exceeded the Commission’s statutory powers, in Citizens to Save California v. California Fair Political Practices Commission (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 736
Invalidating a 2013 San Francisco ordinance which imposed a ten-year ban on unit mergers as preempted by the Ellis Act, in San Francisco Apartment Assn., et al., v. City & County of San Francisco, 3 Cal. App. 5th 463 (2016).
A precedent-setting United States Supreme Court victory upholding the First Amendment rights of citizens to make campaign contributions supporting or opposing state and local initiatives and referenda, in Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981)
Gonzalez v. Bowen (Super. Ct. Sacramento County, 2008, No. 34-2008-00016638). As counsel to the campaign opposing Proposition 7 on the November 2008 statewide ballot, developed and then successfully defended the ballot argument against Proposition 7 that the measure discriminated against small renewable energy companies.
State Dept. of Personnel Administration RFP # 700-11-13 (2012). Part of legal team that successfully defended a contract award of $30 million to Aon Hewitt to administer California state employee 401(k), 401(a), and 457(b) retirement plans against a bid protest brought by a competitor.
Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork v. Concolino (Super. Ct. Sacramento County, 2014, No. 34-2014-80001748). Part of litigation team that successfully defended the rejection of a proposed ballot measure that would have halted the construction of a new arena for the NBA’s Sacramento Kings.
Assembly Bill 483 (Ting, 2013): Principal drafter of legislation that adds a section to the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act to define the terms “specific benefit” and “specific government service” for purposes of California Constitution, Article XIII C.
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Bowen (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1298 (depub. 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4525). On behalf of amicus curiae, successfully argued that the state Legislature cannot use the budget process to adopt bills on a majority vote that the state Constitution otherwise requires to be adopted by a two-thirds vote.
Shaw v. Chiang (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 577. Part of litigation team that successfully challenged the state Legislature’s diversion to the state General Fund of over $1 billion in revenues dedicated by the voters to local and state public transportation projects
McKenzie v. Bowen (Super. Ct. Sacramento County, 2010, No. 34-2010-80000621). As counsel to the campaign supporting Proposition 22 on the November 2010 statewide ballot, successfully challenged the Legislative Analyst’s estimate of Proposition 22’s fiscal effect on state and local government revenues contained in the ballot title and summary and ballot label.
Proposition 22 (2010). Principal coauthor of successful statewide initiative constitutional amendment that protects local agency property tax and transportation revenues from state raids.
On behalf of our client the Motion Picture Association of America, Eric was the chief technical consultant for the industry on the drafting of AB 1839 (Bocanegra), which established the $1.6 billion California motion picture production tax credit program.
In response to Cutler v. Franchise Tax Board, the Franchise Tax Board proposed to retroactively tax hundreds of California entrepreneurs who had benefitted from the Qualified Small Business Stock exclusion. On behalf of California Business Defense, a coalition of those entrepreneurs, he was the chief strategist and lead lobbyist for the effort that led to the passage of AB 1412 (Gatto/Bocanegra) and SB 209 (Ted Lieu) which gave full relief to the entrepreneurs from all taxes, interest and penalties.
Mr. Lucas also represents numerous wealthy donors who are politically active at the federal, state and local levels throughout the United States.
He counsels and provides compliance services to numerous Fortune 500 companies located throughout the United States.
Mr. Lucas also advises and serves as Treasurer to numerous SuperPACs and independent expenditure committees.
He serves as Counsel and Treasurer to multiple federal, state and local political action committees.
Mr. Lucas has served as Counsel and Treasurer to over 60 statewide and local ballot measure committees, including most recently the successful efforts to defeat California’s Proposition 46 (MICRA) and Santa Barbara’s Measure P (ban on fracking).
Mr. Lim has a deep understanding and recall of federal and state mandates for public transparency and lobbyists. He balances this expertise with his appreciation for practical solutions to develop easy-to-follow lobby disclosure programs for clients to comply with lobbyist and lobbyist employer registration and reporting obligations. To track reportable activity, Nielsen Merksamer developed mobile-friendly, electronic questionnaires, which have been very successful in gathering data, even in the most challenging of corporate environments.
School District Organization: represented numerous citizen groups and public entities concerning the restructuring of school district boundaries, including in judicial proceedings and proceedings before local regulatory agencies and the State Board of Education. One matter resulted in an appellate decision, San Rafael Elementary School District v. State Board of Education, 73 Cal. App. 4th 1018 (1999), in which Ms. Leoni successfully represented local parents seeking to transfer their homes from one school district to another, in a case establishing the principle that the State Board of Education need not defer to a local educational agency in determining whether the criteria for such a transfer were met.
Initiatives and Referenda: represented numerous clients in drafting, qualifying, defending, and challenging initiatives and referenda on matters that range from redistricting, to land use, to utility rates, including in judicial proceedings resulting in many reported cases.
Unique Elections Issues: for example, represented a California Charter city in designing and implementing charter provisions and ordinances that would permit the City to adjudicate its own election contests; assisted a general law city in adjudicating the qualification of a City Council member alleged not be to a resident of the City; advised a City desiring to establish a cumulative voting method of election for its City Council.
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. __, 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.
Redistricting: represented numerous cities, counties, and other public entities in complying with the obligation to redistrict after the 1990 & 2000 federal Censuses.
Federal and California Voting Rights Act: represented numerous jurisdictions in suits under Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights and under the California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”), including, among others, the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, Tulare Local Healthcare District, the City of Anaheim, the City of Santa Clarita, the City of Hanford, the City of Compton, the City of Santa Clarita, the City of Whittier, the City of Bellflower, the Santa Clarita Community College District, the Cerritos Community College District, the City of Palmdale, the City of Glendale, and the City of Santa Barbara. Also advises public jurisdictions on the requirements of the CVRA, assessing exposure, and advising on strategies for addressing demands for compliance with its terms, including establishing electoral districts.
Lopez v. Merced County, 473 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (E.D. Cal. 2007) & later unpublished opinions: represented County in defeating multiple allegations that Merced County violated the special provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act and ultimately obtained summary judgment in the County’s favor.
Wilson v. Eu, 1 Cal. 4th 707 (1991): represented the California State Board of Equalization in connection with a court-drawn redistricting plan following the 1990 Census.
The State of Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2001): Represented consultant to the Commission concerning all aspects of the 2001 first ever citizen-commission redistricting of the state’s Congressional and legislative districts including United States Attorney General preclearance under Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act.
Vandermost v. Bowen, 53 Cal. 4th 421 (2012): represented the Proponent of Proposition 20, which brought congressional districts under the auspices of the California Redistricting Commission, in litigation challenging the Commission’s redistricting plans.
Expert and advisor on conflicts of interests involving government officials, contractors and regulated entities.
Outside counsel to corporations and trade associations in regard to campaign finance, lobby disclosure and government ethics compliance.
General counsel and professional treasurer for advocacy organizations, political action committees and social welfare organizations.
On behalf of representatives of the rental housing industry, Nielsen Merksamer successfully successfully challenged a 2013 San Francisco ordinance that imposed a ten-year ban on unit mergers, on the ground that the ban was preempted by the Ellis Act, in San Francisco Apartment Assn., et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, 3 Cal. App. 5th 463 (2016).
Advised clients seeking opportunities with public pension plans regarding compliance with lobby and placement agent registration requirements, as well as other ethics considerations, throughout the country.
Advised clients on compliance with federal, state and local pay-to-play laws, including SEC Rule 206(4)-5.
Successfully advised clients through complex ethics investigations and audits.
Developed and implemented comprehensive compliance systems for companies and nonprofit organizations to address lobby, campaign finance and ethics laws nationwide.
Served as treasurer and counsel for dozens of ballot measure and independent expenditure committees.
Design and present government ethics trainings to various client teams, including sales, government affairs, and public outreach.
Audit of national sales team to determine procurement lobbying registration and reporting requirements.
Draft political law compliance policies and procedures, including policies regarding lobby compliance, campaign finance review, and government ethics.
Design and monitor government ethics compliance program, including gift tracking, clearance, reporting and conflict of interest and revolving door review.
Coordinate and manage national campaign contribution clearance process for clients that are active in multiple states, including filings and pay-to-play review.
Implement and oversee 50-state lobby filing compliance programs.
On behalf of representatives of the rental housing industry, Nielsen Merksamer successfully brought suit to invalidate key provisions of San Francisco’s “anti-harassment” ordinance for violating the judicial powers clause of the California Constitution and the First Amendment, in Larson v. City and County of San Francisco, 192 Cal. App. 4th 1263 (2011).
In Shaw v. Chiang, 175 Cal. App. 4th 577 (2009), the firm successfully challenged the state Legislature’s diversion of over $1 billion in revenues dedicated by the voters to local and state public transportation projects to the state General Fund.
In Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Int’l Union v. Davis, 21 Cal. 4th 585 (1999), the California Supreme Court invalidated the Indian Gaming Initiative, holding that the measure violated the California Constitution’s prohibition on “casinos of the type currently operating in Nevada and New Jersey,” the position we advocated in our amicus curiae
Nielsen Merksamer represents a number of local government entities in the California Legislature, including Contra Costa County, Marin County, Riverside County, San Diego County, Yolo County, the City of Visalia, and the City of Vernon.
Representing amicus curiae in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Bowen, 212 Cal. App. 4th 1298 (2013), the firm successfully argued that the state Legislature cannot use the budget process to adopt bills on a majority vote that the state Constitution otherwise requires to be adopted by a two-thirds vote.
The firm has represented dozens of local governments (counties and cities) in negotiations and arbitration with Indian tribes about the off-reservation impacts of tribal casino projects. For example, in 2009, the firm represented Yolo County in “baseball-style” arbitration against a local tribe seeking to expand its casino. The arbitrator sided with the County, agreeing that the tribe must provide greater mitigation of local impacts than it proposed.
Drafted the “California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support Act” to regulate online sports wagering in California and provide funding for solutions to homelessness and expand resources for mental health care.
Administrative Enforcement Actions: Representing public officials and employees alleged to have violated the conflict of interest and financial disclosure rules. Representing leading corporations in connection with ethics agency investigations into alleged violations of lobbying, gift, and conflict of interest rules. Filing and responding to complaints regarding various alleged violations of the campaign finance laws, including political advertisement disclaimers, and of the similar laws of other states. Working in conjunction with criminal co-counsel representing clients in matters such as alleged “laundered” contributions and “quid pro quo” transactions.
In the landmark case of Cwynar v. City & County of San Francisco, 90 Cal. App. 4th 637 (2001), the firm successfully challenged an San Francisco rent control ordinance that precluded landlords from evicting a tenant from a rental unit so that the unit could be used as a residence by the owner or a close family member represented an unconstitutional physical taking of property.
On behalf of both private sector and local government clients, and in concert with the California State Association of Counties, the firm has been involved in significant public safety issues, including the implementation of the realignment program transferring responsibility for certain state prisoners to county jails, development of programs for providing mental health and substance abuse services for those released from jail, and protection of the revenues available to counties for either incarceration or release to community-based programs.
In Pala Band of Mission Indians v. Board of Supervisors, 54 Cal. App. 4th 565 (1997), the firm successfully defending the legality of a San Diego County initiative establishing zoning and general plan amendments for a major sanitary waste facility.
Firm attorneys advocate for local governments regarding these tribal gaming issues with the Governor’s office, the Attorney General and the state Legislature, including seeking protection of local communities with respect to the terms of tribal-state gaming compacts.
Represented tribal client in the legislative effort to authorize and establish a regulatory framework for limited forms of internet gaming, such as internet poker.
In Rhomberg v. Wilson, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 3052 (9th Cir. 1997), we successfully defended the Governor’s 1991 Inaugural Committee in a two-week jury trial alleging civil rights violations brought by persons arrested for protesting—a verdict that was unanimously affirmed on appeal.
Nielsen Merksamer attorneys represented amicus curiae in federal court in a successful takings challenge to a 2014 San Francisco ordinance that requiring rental property-owners to pay evicted tenants two years’ rent differential between their prior and new housing units.
In 2013, the firm worked closely with the Brown Administration and the California State Association of Counties on the structure for funding the expansion of the state’s Medi-Cal program pursuant to the Affordable Care Act. This work was built on the foundation of many years representing counties and other health care stakeholders in obtaining and maintaining funding streams for health care services.
We represent local governments in proceedings before the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Interior involving tribal petitions to take land into trust, including issues related to compliance with federal environmental laws.
Representing licensees in licensing and accusation proceedings before the California Gambling Control Commission and the Bureau of Gambling Control.
Formal Advice: With increasingly complex political rules, evolving practices and technologies, new judicial interpretations, and changes in agency leadership, it can be challenging to predict exactly how an agency might apply its rules to a novel situation. Most ethics agencies accept formal requests for the agency to explain how it would apply its rules to a planned activity. Nielsen Merksamer’s attorneys have submitted hundreds of such letters, meticulously analyzing the planned activity in light of the letter and purpose of the applicable rules, judicial precedent, agency past practice, and good policy.
In Stiesberg v. State of California, 80 F.3d 352 (9th Cir. 1996), we successfully obtained the dismissal, affirmed on appeal, of civil rights claims against our client, the head of the California Highway Patrol.
Proposition 22 (2010). Principal coauthor of successful statewide initiative constitutional amendment that protects local agency property tax and transportation revenues from state raids.
In a number of cases against local rent boards, the firm has successfully represented landlords in enforcing their rights under the Costa-Hawkins vacancy decontrol law to increase rents to market rates upon vacancy. In each case the rent boards sought to construe Costa-Hawkins narrowly to limit the ability of landlords to obtain rent increases.
Nielsen Merksamer attorneys serve as the treasurer and/or legal counsel for scores of the nation’s leading federal, state and local political action committees in California and across the country.
In November 2010, the firm was counsel to the campaign in favor of Proposition 22, sponsored by the League of California Cities, the California Transit Association, and other local government interests; the measure amended Article XIII, § 24, of the California Constitution, designed to prohibit the State of California from borrowing or taxing funds used for transportation, redevelopment or local government projects and services.
Nielsen Merksamer regularly advises clients on gift and conflict of interest restrictions, including revolving door and other ethics restrictions, at the federal, state and local levels of government.
Represented horse racing interests as interveners in the federal court proceedings in Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1997), concerning taxation of satellite wagering revenues.
Agency Regulations: Ethics agencies are continuously changing their rules and regulations, and typically offer an opportunity for the public and interested stakeholders to comment on an issue or a draft regulation, both in writing and at public meetings. Our firm’s attorneys and researchers monitor the regulations agencies are developing and regularly submit expert comments on behalf of interested clients or as members of the political law bar.
Ms. Gibson handles campaign finance compliance issues for ballot measure committees.
Ms. Gibson is experienced in matters regarding ballot measure, election law, and voting rights litigation.
Ms. Gibson assists with drafting and formatting initiative and referendum petitions.
As a member of the firm’s litigation team, Mr. Carson also works on matters related to ballot challenges, election contests, property rights, and highly regulated industries.
Mr. Carson has experience on a variety of issues related to ballot measures, providing strategic advice and counsel to initiative and referenda campaigns.
Mr. Carson serves as legal counsel and treasurer to political committees in a variety of federal, state, and local jurisdictions, advising on campaign compliance and reporting matters. He also provides guidance on lobbying rules, conflicts of interest, and gift restrictions.
STATE & LOCAL TAX ADVOCACY – Representative Matters – Admin Tax Controversy
Ms. Johnson’s last position was with the Senate Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic Development where she worked on issues relating to economic development, workforce training, and California’s tourism, entertainment, and sports industries as well as the regulation of the a number of professions.
Prior to joining CRA, Ms. Johnson worked in the California Legislature for ten years in a number of capacities where she developed relationships with key legislative staff and Members.
In Rose Ventures III v. City of Oakland Housing, Residential Rent and Relocation Board, a suit brought in Alameda County Superior Court, we successfully represented the owner of luxury apartment buildings, obtaining a court order overturning a Rent Board decision that granted tenants hundreds of thousands of dollars in rent reductions for alleged “reductions in service.” On remand to the rent board, the rent reductions were pared back by 80% of the original amounts awarded.
Ms. Johnson was the Vice President of Government Affairs for the California Retailers Association (CRA) where she served as the in-house lobbyist and represented the retail industry on a variety of issues.
In California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. Schwarzenegger, 163 Cal. App. 4th 802 (2008), the firm represented former Governors George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, and Gray Davis as amici curiae, successfully supporting the authority of Governor Schwarzenegger to issue an emergency proclamation authorizing the state to contract with out-of-state private prisons to house some of California’s inmates.
Mr. Scotland ruled on a wide variety of complex civil matters while serving as a Justice of the Court of Appeal.
Steven Merksamer is AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell and has been selected by his peers to be included in Best Lawyers in America every year since 2008.
Steven Merksamer is currently a member of the Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and the California Chamber of Commerce. He is a trustee of the Stevenson School and a founder and past Chairman of State Law Resources, Inc., an international network of independent law firms.
Steven Merksamer has served on the Board of Governors of the Hoover Institution on War,
Steven Merksamer was appointed by President Reagan to serve on the President’s Administration of Justice Task Force, the President’s Export Council, and the National Commission on Presidential Scholars.
Steven Merksamer served as an Assistant to the Lt. Governor of California and as Assistant to the Speaker of the California State Assembly. He chaired and directed the transition between the Brown and Deukmejian administration.
Mr. Scotland appears in trial and appellate courts, representing clients regarding constitutional challenges to state statutes and regulations, challenges to the legality of county ordinances and regulatory actions, and defenses against claims based on the California Environmental Quality Act.
Steven Merksamer served as a California Deputy Attorney General
Mr. Merksamer has had a most distinguished career in public service.
Ms. French served the Office of the President at the University of California for six years as Associate Director for Legislative Affairs.
Chip Nielsen has incorporated and represented over 40 non-profit charities
Ms. French served as senior staff to the California State Legislature for nearly three decades in a variety of positions: Chief of Staff; Special Assistant to the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee; Staff Director for the Senate Appropriations Committee under five chairpersons; and as Deputy Director for the Senate Finance Committee prior to its division in 1986 into the current Appropriations and Budget and Fiscal Review Committees. During this time she developed broad fiscal and policy expertise in virtually every subject matter area within state law and the state budget.
Chip Nielsen is part of the firm’s team that represents new clients who have realized they have violated federal or state political laws and will be investigated.
Mr. Kelly worked on tax matters as a staff counsel for the Franchise Tax Board, and as an attorney for the State Controller’s Office, Division of Tax Administration.
Of the 330 California statewide and local ballot measures represented by this firm, Chip Nielsen was General Counsel to 55 statewide and 25 local early ones,
Mr. Kelly was a Principal Deputy in the Office of the Legislative Counsel in Sacramento
We work with all California state agencies and departments involved in the administration, regulation, payment, or provision of health care including: Department of Consumer Affairs and its various professional licensing boards Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Department of Health Care Services Department of Finance Department of Insurance Department of Justice Department of Managed Health Care Department of Public Health Department of Rehabilitation Department of Social Services Office of Statewide Planning and Development Public Employees Retirement System
The firm reviews, prepares and files PAC reports with the Federal Elections Commission, state filing officials, and in dozens of localjurisdictions requiring campaign finance disclosure
For over 30 years Nielsen Merksamer has established and administered various non-profit organizations, including charitable, educational, scientific and social welfare organizations as well as trade associations
In November 2004, the firm drafted and was counsel to the campaign in favor of Proposition 65, sponsored by a coalition of local government organizations, which would have amended the California Constitution to ensure that local property and sales tax revenues remained with local government entities to ensure funding for public safety, health, libraries, parks, and other local services. On behalf of the campaign, the firm negotiated an alternative legislative solution, which resulted in the enactment of Proposition 1A, amending Article XI, § 15, to protect local revenues.
The firm assists statewide local government organizations in drafting comments to proposed federal laws and regulations.
We provide advance legal review and advice regarding the legality and reportability of providing items of value to public officials at all levels of government, such as travel, food and beverage expenses, honoraria, etc., including the applicable exceptions. We also prepare and file disclosure reports, or provide appropriate notices to public officials, where required.
Represented international clients concerning legal issues arising from the conduct of advance deposit wagering on horse racing events.
Audits: Numerous ethics agencies across the country audit the entities that report to them. Our representation during audits benefits from our extensive experience providing bookkeeping and political reporting services. Firm attorneys and our highly experienced professional staff have represented clients in well over 100 audits by federal, state, and local agencies ranging from the General Accountability Office’s review of federal lobby reports to state audits of political committees, lobbyists and major donors. Our auditing proficiency also allows us to quickly and comprehensively assess an organization’s compliance status either in the face of a government audit or pro-actively to establish best practices.
STATE & LOCAL TAX ADVOCACY – Representative Matters – Litigation
Representing the Rental Housing Association of Northern Alameda County, the firm successfully challenged the constitutionality of numerous provisions of Oakland’s Proposition EE, which imposed broad and unprecedented restrictions on owners’ rights to prosecute unlawful detainer actions against tenants in Oakland. The challenge resulted in a number of those provisions being voided and others being amended pursuant to a subsequent settlement.
In Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association v. Deukmejian, 227 Cal. App. 3d 663 (1991), the firm successfully challenged Proposition 105, the so-called Public’s Right to Know Act, which prescribed regulatory disclosures for a whole host various activities, on the ground that it was adopted in violation of the California Constitution’s single subject rule.
The firm has represented clients drafting legislation and implementing laws in the following areas: Regulation of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) and insurance plans Coverage issues for medical conditions Access to medications in various health care settings Utilization of provider fees to drawdown federal funding Use of managed care models in Medi-Cal Reimbursement mechanisms for providers Professional licensing standards and scopes of practice Confidentiality of medical information Anti kickback laws County health care delivery issues
The firm has advised a number of county registrars and city elections officials on complex election law matters, including recounts, candidate qualification disputes, etc.
In jurisdictions that prohibit corporate political contributions, firm attorneys advise corporate clients on the rules governing the appropriate mechanisms for using corporate funds to support a corporate PAC, including compliance with “pay to play” laws applicable to government contractors and other regulated entities and individuals.
In connection with our other representations, we are often called upon to advise clients regarding the requirements of state and local open meetings laws, laws governing access to public records, and other open government laws.
Lobbying Representative Matters #1
In County of Amador v. Ione Band of Miwok Indians, 149 Cal. App. 4th 1089 (2007), we successfully represented Amador County in challenging a Municipal Services Agreement, entered into between an Indian Tribe and the City of Plymouth, for violating CEQA.
We regularly advise public officials and government agencies, as well as private parties dealing with public officials, regarding the applicable rules governing conflicts of interest and possible disqualification of such officials with respect to public actions.
In Western Telcon, Inc. v. California State Lottery, 13 Cal. 4th 475 (1996), the firm represented a coalition of county district attorneys as amici curiae in support of plaintiffs who successfully challenged the State Lottery’s authority to conduct a Keno game.
Impactful Litigation: Firm litigators have challenged political laws that violate our client’s rights at every level of government. The firm established itself as a leading advocate for the regulated community forty years ago in a case before the United States Supreme Court that ruled it is unconstitutional for governments to limit contributions to local ballot measure committees in Citizens Against Rent Control City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981). In Citizens to Save California v. California Fair Political Practices Commission, 145 Cal. App. 4th 736 (2006), the firm successfully challenged a California Fair Political Practices Commission regulation restricting contributions to candidate-controlled ballot measure committees, on the ground that it exceeded the Commission’s statutory powers. The firm also earlier obtained an injunction preventing the FPPC from investigating Citizens to Save California’s compliance with the challenged regulation while the suit was pending. In Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes v. City of Richmond, Case No. 3:12-cv-04545-CRB (N.D. Cal. 2012), the firm obtained a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Richmond’s unconstitutionally-burdensome disclaimer requirements for campaign mailings. The City’s ordinance was then amended to remove the offending provisions.
Campaign Finance Disclosure: Corporations and other organizations, executives, political activists and major donors must maintain careful records of contributions to comply with limits, restrictions on the timing of contributions, and “pay to play” laws impacting those associated with regulated companies. Nielsen Merksamer provides advance legal clearance, legal summaries and filing services related to corporate, PAC and other political activity nationally. We also advise clients on pay-to-play and other campaign finance laws and on the do’s and don’t’s of establishing internal compliance systems to meet the requirements of such laws. Where appropriate we also: fully administer a bank account for the client’s budgeted campaign contributions; issue checks and transmittal letters following approval by the client; and track contributions through delivery and disclosure to ensure timely reporting and a full and final accounting of expenditures.
Lobby & Gift Disclosure: Corporations, trade associations, non-profits and firms influencing government decisions must determine whether to register to lobby and fully comply with a myriad of lobby and gift disclosure requirements. Nielsen Merksamer is one of only a handful of law firms nationally can provide comprehensive advice and filing services for these requirements. Nielsen Merksamer customizes lobby and gift disclosure compliance services according to the needs and organizational structure of the client. We work with clients to identify their employees and consultants who should be registered to lobby and those who should be monitored for potential future registration and reportable activity, such as reportable gifts to public officials. Our firm can review, prepare and file all lobby and gift disclosure reports under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act and Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, and in state and local jurisdictions, maintain complete audit files, and answer questions related to these reports. We provide appropriate training to impacted executives, employees and consultants and assist clients in responses to ethics agencies and other authorities, with which our attorneys maintain respected working relationships.
In Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Int’l Union v. Davis, 21 Cal. 4th 585 (1999), the California Supreme Court invalidated the Indian Gaming Initiative, holding that the measure violated the California Constitution’s prohibition on “casinos of the type currently operating in Nevada and New Jersey,” the position we advocated in our amicus curiae
The firm has represented dozens of local governments (counties and cities) in negotiations and arbitration with Indian tribes about the off-reservation impacts of tribal casino projects. For example, in 2009, the firm represented Yolo County in “baseball-style” arbitration against a local tribe seeking to expand its casino. The arbitrator sided with the County, agreeing that the tribe must provide greater mitigation of local impacts than it proposed.
Firm attorneys advocate for local governments regarding these tribal gaming issues with the Governor’s office, the Attorney General and the state Legislature, including seeking protection of local communities with respect to the terms of tribal-state gaming compacts.
We represent local governments in proceedings before the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Interior involving tribal petitions to take land into trust, including issues related to compliance with federal environmental laws.
We represent local governments in federal court challenges to fee to trust decisions rendered by the Department of Interior.

REGISTER FOR UPDATES

PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE OUTCOMES. The results in each case depend on the facts of that case and may differ as facts differ.

Attorney Advertising & Terms of Use >>

Offices

San Francisco Bay Area
Sacramento

Nielsen Merksamer, LLP © 2026

PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE OUTCOMES.
The results in each case depend on the facts of that case and may differ as facts differ.

Attorney Advertising & Terms of Use >>

Privacy Policy >>