Practice Areas

 

Practice Area Details

pdf PRINT TO PDF

Redistricting

The act of redistricting is a highly complex process that implicates constitutional standards, the federal Voting Rights Act, and various state and local redistricting criteria.

For the last three redistricting cycles, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell has provided advice to governmental agencies, including the California State Assembly, nonprofits, and other interested parties about redistricting criteria and how to reduce the risks that a plan may be successfully challenged.  Our attorneys have also successfully defended challenges to completed redistricting plans.

Over the last 25 years, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP has been involved in virtually every case involving California's redistricting process.

Representative highlights of this work include:

  • City of Berkeley v. Dupuis, Alameda County Superior Court, No. RG14720117 (2014).
    Successfully represented the City in effort to use Council-approved redistricting map until a referendum election took place.
  • Lee v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV 12-06618-CBM (C.D. Cal.) (ongoing).
    Successfully defended the City of Los Angeles's 2012 Redistricting Ordinance against a lawsuit challenging the boundaries created for City Council Districts 8, 9, and 10 alleging that district boundaries violated the Federal and State Constitutions, and the Los Angeles City Charter.
  • Nadler v. Schwarzenegger, 137 Cal. App. 4th 1327 (2006).
    Successfully defended the State’s 2001 redistricting plan against a lawsuit challenging the state legislative plans on the grounds that they violated the California Constitution.
  • Cano v. Davis, 191 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (C.D. Cal. 2001); 211 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (C.D. Cal. 2002), aff'd, 537 U.S. 1100 (2003).
    Represented the California Assembly in a successful defense of the State's 2001 redistricting plan against a federal lawsuit challenging the congressional and state legislative plans on the grounds that they violated the Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act.
  • Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999).
    Represented the California Assembly before the United States Supreme Court in a case challenging the way in which the decennial census is conducted.
  • Wilson v. Eu, 1 Cal. 4th 707 (1992).
    Represented the California Assembly in proceedings before the California Supreme Court regarding the submission and enactment of a statewide redistricting plan by court-appointed special masters.
  • Assembly v. Deukmejian, 30 Cal. 3d 638 (1982).
    Represented the California Assembly in challenge to referenda against redistricting statutes passed by the Legislature.
* The results described above were dependent on the facts of that particular case.  Prior results do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes.