Experience

VRA/REDISTRICTING Practice Area Rep Matters – Litigation

Litigation

The firm also has extensive experience in litigating voting rights cases in the federal and state courts.  For example:

  • The firm has represented well over a dozen jurisdictions in suits under the California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”), including, among others, the Tulare Local Healthcare District, the City of Anaheim, the City of Bellflower, the City of Camarillo, the City of Compton, the City of Fullerton, the City of Orange, the City of Ontario, the City of Palmdale, the City of Palm Desert, the City of Santa Barbara, the City of Santa Clarita, the City of Whittier, the Santa Clarita Community College District, the Glendale Community College District, and the Cerritos Community College District.
  • The firm has also advised hundreds more jurisdictions regarding their responses to possible or threatened litigation under the CVRA.
  • In 2018-2020, the firm successfully defended the City of Martinez against a suit alleging that its new council district map, adopted as part of its transition from at-large to district-based voting, was a illegal gerrymander in violation of the Elections Code, Sanchez v. City of Martinez, Case No. C-18-02219 (Contra Costa County Superior Court).
  • In 2022, represented members of the local community in the City of Morgan Hill in successfully challenging the map adopted by the City Council on the ground that it violated California’s FAIR MAPS Act, Tate v. City of Morgan Hill, Case No. 22CV396857 (Santa Clara County Superior Court).
  • In 2022, successfully challenge the district map adopted by the Arcadia City Council against a claim that it violated the FAIR MAPS Act, HQH Chinese Am. Equalization Assn., et al. v. City of Arcadia, Case No. 22STCP01878 (Los Angeles County Superior Court).
  • In Arizona Legislature v. Ariz. Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787, 135 S. Ct. 2652, 192 L. Ed. 2d 704 (2015), the firm filed an amicus curiae  brief on behalf of former California Governors George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson & Arnold Schwarzenegger; the California Chamber of Commerce; Charles Munger, Jr.; and Bill Mundell, successfully arguing that the text, history and structure of the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution confirm the constitutionality of states giving authority over congressional redistricting to an independent commission; 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.
  • In Lopez v. Merced County, 473 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (E.D. Cal. 2007) & later unpublished opinions, the firm defeated multiple allegations that Merced County violated the “preclearance” provisions of Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act and ultimately obtained summary judgment in the County’s favor.
  • In 2012, the firm represented Merced County in 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.
  • In Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 133 S. Ct. 2612, 186 L. Ed. 2d 651 (2013), the firm filed an amicus curiae  brief on behalf of the County of Merced, California, in support of no party, pre-emptively 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.
  • In League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 126 S. Ct. 2594, 165 L. Ed. 2d 609 (2006), the firm filed an amicus curiae  brief successfully urging the Court to reject proposed rule that would have held voluntary mid-decade redistricting to be unconstitutional exercise of legislative authority.
  • In 2003, we represented the City of Vista in connection with a USDOJ investigation of that jurisdiction under Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act. By conducting extensive independent analysis of demographic and voting patterns within that City, we ultimately persuaded USDOJ to end its investigation of the City of Vista, without filing suit.
  • In 2001, Nielsen Merksamer represented the Upper San Gabriel Valley Water District in successfully defending against a Voting Rights Act suit filed by the Department of Justice against the District under Section 2.