Jenner & Block

Election Law and Redistricting

For decades, our attorneys have been involved in a wide variety of landmark election law and redistricting cases. We have successfully represented clients before the United States Supreme Court and in state, federal, and local courts across the country at both the trial and appellate levels. We combine extensive knowledge of this area of law with advice and litigation strategy tailored to each client’s political and legislative needs.

Our experience with redistricting, in particular, is extensive.  In the most recent redistricting cycle, our attorneys advised elected officials and their staffs, redistricting commission members and other decision makers in a number of states regarding the redistricting process.  We understand the unique legal challenges of redistricting at the federal, state, and local levels, as well as the need to tailor advice and litigation strategies to the political realities of any given state or locality.  We are experienced not only with traditional redistricting efforts before state legislatures and courts, but also with the nonpartisan or bipartisan commission procedures that have been adopted in an increasing number of states.

Our attorneys leverage the strength of our firm’s premier Appellate and Supreme Court practice group to represent clients in complex matters, including before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Our co-chair, Paul M. Smith, has argued a number of redistricting and election law cases before the Supreme Court, including Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015), representing the Commission in a challenge that its legislative map was biased, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), a case involving the constitutionality of voter identification requirements, LULAC  v. Perry (2006), involving a broad set of challenges to a congressional redistricting plan, and Vieth v. Jubelirer (2003), involving the standards for partisan gerrymandering claims.

The firm also regularly represents parties, including elected officials, in briefing before the Supreme Court both on the merits and as amici curiae.  The firm has filed briefs on behalf of clients in every major voting rights and campaign finance case that the Supreme Court has considered in the last two decades.  Our lawyers also have appeared before the United States House of Representatives in election contest proceedings under the Federal Contested Elections Act.

We understand the complexities of this field of practice and work seamlessly with a variety of experts to offer our clients comprehensive, well-reasoned counseling and dispute resolution.  Our attorneys are routinely called on by the media to offer views on election law and related issues. We also regularly speak and publish articles in these areas.