Remcho, Johansen & Purcell

Litigation

Appellate Practice

Ballot Measures

Campaigns & Elections

Education

Public Agencies

Ethics & Conflict Advice

Lobbyist Advice

Enforcement Actions

Internal Investigations

Litigation

Remcho, Johansen & Purcell specializes in public policy and constitutional litigation advice and litigation in both state and federal courts.

The firm has represented the State Legislature as a whole and the Assembly and Senate separately in decennial redistricting work and litigation involving the privileges and responsibilities of the legislative branch. For over two decades, we have been counsel to the State Department of Education and to individual school districts in matters ranging from statewide school finance litigation to local bond initiatives and student school assignments. In recent years, the firm has represented the State Controller in a number of cases.

Since its inception, the firm has been extensively involved in state and local initiative litigation, including pre-election and post-election challenges and litigation over the form and content of petitions and ballot arguments. The firm has both defended and challenged initiatives, on topics ranging from limits on campaign contributions to early childhood development programs.

Major litigation highlights include:

Ballot Measure Law

In Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Political Practices Comm'n, 51 Cal. 3d 744 (1990), the firm successfully argued that two campaign finance measures, Propositions 73 and 68, conflicted with one another and could not be reconciled. Because Proposition 73 received the greater number of affirmative votes, the California Supreme Court held that it should prevail over Proposition 68. The firm successfully challenged Proposition 73 on constitutional grounds (Service Employees Int'l Union v. Fair Political Practices Comm'n, 747 F. Supp. 580 (E.D. Cal. 1990)), and persuaded the California Supreme Court that Proposition 73 could not be reformed. Kopp v. Fair Political Practices Comm'n, 11 Cal. 4th 607 (1995).

In 1999, the firm brought a successful pre-election challenge to Proposition 24, an initiative measure that would have transferred authority for redistricting from the Legislature to the California Supreme Court and reduced legislators’ salaries. Senate v. Jones, 21 Cal. 4th 1142 (1999). The California Supreme Court held that Proposition 24 embraced at least two separate and unrelated subjects, in violation of the state Constitution's single-subject rule.

In the Fall of 2000, the firm successfully defended Proposition 10 during a 10-week trial in San Diego. The court held that the initiative did not violate the single-subject rule, the separation of powers doctrine or the constitutional prohibition against state funding of entities outside the state's exclusive management and control. The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s ruling in 2003. California Assoc. of Retail Tobacconists v. State, 109 Cal. App. 4th 792 (2003).

In 2003, the firm successfully challenged an interim contract approved by a municipality before a referendum election could take place. Lindelli v. Town of San Anselmo, 111 Cal. App. 4th 1099 (2003).

Redistricting

Over the last two decades, and through three decennial redistricting cycles, the firm has actively advised and represented the California Assembly in connection with redistricting.

The firm was extensively involved in redistricting in the 1980’s, including Assembly v. Deukmejian, 30 Cal. 3d 638 (1982), cert denied, 456 U.S. 941 (1982); Badham v. Eu, 568 F. Supp. 156 (1983), aff'd, 721 F.2d 1170 (1983); Legislature v. Deukmejian, 34 Cal. 3d 658 (1983); and Halliwell v. Eu, U.S. District Court, Eastern District, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 801 (1987), reh'g denied, 484 U.S. 970 (1987).

In the 1990’s, the firm represented the California Assembly in proceedings before the California Supreme Court regarding the submission and enactment of statewide redistricting plans. See e.g., Wilson v. Eu, 1 Cal. 4th. 707 (1992). In addition, the firm successfully litigated a Freedom of Information Act request to compel the Department of Commerce to turn over adjusted census data to the Assembly. Assembly v. U.S. Dep't. of Commerce, 797 F. Supp. 1554 (E.D. Cal. 1992), aff'd, 968 F.2d 916 (9th Cir. 1992).

In 2001, the firm played an integral part in advising the Assembly during the redistricting process. Once the redistricting process was complete, the firm successfully defended a federal challenge to the decennial congressional and state legislative redistricting plans. Cano v. Davis, 191 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (2001); 211 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (2002), aff'd, 537 U.S. 1100 (2003). In 2003, the firm also successfully defended the California Assembly against several constitutional challenges to the Legislature’s 2001 statewide redistricting plan. Andal v. Davis, No. 01CS01397 (Sacramento Super. Ct. Oct. 22, 2003).

Campaign Finance Law

The firm successfully challenged Proposition 73 in 1990. Service Employees Inter'l Union v. Fair Political Practices Comm'n, 747 F. Supp. 580 (E.D. Cal. 1990).

From 1998 to 2000, the firm successfully challenged Proposition 208, a campaign finance initiative, in federal district court and in the Ninth Circuit. California ProLife Council Political Action Comm. v. Scully, 989 F. Supp. 1282 (1998); aff'd, 164 F.3d 1189 (1999).

In 1999, the firm participated in a successful federal court challenge to San Francisco campaign contribution limits. San Franciscans for Sensible Government v. Renne, No. C 99-2456 CW (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 1999).

Privileges and Responsibilities of Legislative and Executive Branches

In 1986, the firm challenged a ballot measure adopted in June 1984 that amended the Legislature's internal rules, including rules governing election of officers, employees, and committees. The Third District Court of Appeal concluded that the measure violated the Legislature’s constitutional power to govern its own affairs. The Court also held that the remaining portions of the act were severable. People's Advocate, Inc. v. Superior Court, 181 Cal. App. 3d 316 (1986).

In 1996, the firm successfully defended the Legislature against a taxpayer action that sought a determination that the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s budget was included in the Legislature's constitutional spending cap. Schabarum v. California Legislature, 60 Cal. App. 4th 1205 (1998).

In 2002, the firm prevailed in a state court challenge to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System’s interpretation of its powers under Proposition 162. Westly v. California Pub. Employees' Retirement Sys. Bd. of Admin., 105 Cal. App. 4th 1095 (2003).

Also in 2002, the firm defended a member of the California Public Utilities Commission in a state court action that sought to remove him from office based on an alleged conflict of interest. People ex rel. Found. for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights v. Duque, 105 Cal. App. 4th 259 (2003).

In 2004, the firm successfully defended two challenges to the State Controller’s implementation of the Unclaimed Property Law. Harris v. Westly, 116 Cal. App. 4th 214 (2004) and Fong v. Westly, 117 Cal. App. 4th 841 (2004).

Other Litigation

Other past litigation matters handled by the firm include Assembly v. Deukmejian, 45 Cal. 3d 727 (1988); Lungren v. Deukmejian, 45 Cal. 3d 727 (1988); Legislature v. Eu, 54 Cal. 3d 492 (1991); Wilson v. California Assembly, 823 P.2d 545 (1992); California Teachers Ass'n v. Hayes, 5 Cal. App. 4th 1513 (1992); Assembly v. Public Utils. Comm'n 12 Cal. 4th 87 (1995); Quackenbush v. Superior Court (Congress of Cal. Seniors), 60 Cal. App. 4th 454 (1997); Yoshioka v. Superior Court, 58 Cal. App. 4th 972 (1997); Bates v. Jones, 958 F. Supp. 1446 (1997), and subsequent en banc proceedings; Wilson v. State Bd. of Educ., 75 Cal. App. 4th 1125 (1999); Horwich v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 4th 272 (1999); Hodges v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 4th 109 (1999); Citizens for Jobs and the Economy v. County of Orange, 94 Cal. App. 4th 1311 (2002); In re McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 288 F.3d 369 (9th Cir. 2002); and Paul v. Clinton, No. B155792, 2002 WL 31752289 (Cal. App. Dec. 10, 2002).

For more on litigation see APPELLATE PRACTICE, BALLOT MEASURES, and EDUCATION.