Practice Areas:

Election Law

Ballot Measures

Campaign Reporting

Major Donor Reporting

Lobbyist Reporting

Ethics and Conflict of Interest

Litigation

Enforcement and Compliance Representation before Regulatory Agencies

Brown Act and Bagley-Keene Act Compliance


Return to the Political/Government Law Home Page

Litigation

Olson, Hagel & Fishburn, LLP is a leader in litigation involving the political process and governmental organization. The firm's attorneys bring over 60 years of combined experience to the field. Olson Hagel has an excellent record in diverse areas of litigation. A representative list follows:

Asserting and defending constitutional challenges to initiatives, both pre-election and post-election, and legislation

Asserting and defending challenges to agency action under the open meetings laws (Brown Act and Bagley-Keene Act) and the Public Records Act

Defending clients in enforcement proceedings -- both administrative and civil -- regarding conflicts of interest

Conducting and defending election contests and recall litigation

Representing governmental entities in complex litigation on state mandates and state/local governmental relations

Commencing and defending litigation related to education law, fiscal structures, and audits of educational agencies

Commencing and defending original writ litigation in trial and appellate courts

Commencing and defending challenges to agency action for failure to comply with Administrative Procedure Act

Appellate litigation

Political Reform Act litigation

Amicus curiae representation for qualified organizations and persons

The firm was recently successful in two major constitutional challenges to statewide initiatives. First, in California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000) 120 S.Ct. 2402, the firm represented the plaintiffs in a challenge to Proposition 198, which required political parties to choose their nominees with "blanket" primary elections. The United States Supreme Court held that the blanket primary was an unconstitutional restraint on the First Amendment rights of political parties. Second, in Bramberg v. Jones (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1045, the firm represented the plaintiffs in a challenge to Proposition 225, which penalized candidates who refused to support Congressional term limits. The California Supreme Court held that Proposition 225 violated Article V of the United States Constitution.

In another case dealing with initiatives, the firm represented the proponents of Proposition 99 (tobacco tax) in litigation establishing that initiative's constitutionality. (Kennedy Wholesale v. Board of Equalization (1991) 53 Cal.3d 245.) The firm later represented the plaintiffs in litigation that prevented a diversion of more than $120 million from health education and research programs funded by Proposition 99. (American Lung Association v. Wilson (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 743.)

In an important case concerning the open meetings laws, the firm obtained a key ruling on the application of the Brown Act. (Kleitman v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 324.) The Court of Appeal declared that closed-session meetings by governing bodies are privileged and confidential, even during disputes over open meetings law requirements.

Olson, Hagel & Fishburn, LLP has proven ability in handling complex and significant litigation on state mandates and governmental relations. The firm recently represented the Commission on State Mandates in a far-reaching lawsuit involving budget allocation between state and local governments. The case carries fiscal consequences of over $15 billion. (County of Sonoma v. Commission on State Mandates (2000) 2000 WL 1725437.) In addition, the firm has been involved at the trial and appellate levels in a lawsuit testing the state's fiscal responsibility for medically indigent adults, with fiscal consequences of tens of millions of dollars. (County of San Bernardino v. State of California.)

The firm handles significant litigation on educational issues as well. It represented the California School Boards Association's Education Legal Alliance as amicus curiae in litigation dealing with the immediate application of Proposition 227 (bilingual education). (Valeria G. v. Wilson, (N.D.Cal.1998) 12 F.Supp.2d 1007.)

A sample of the significant reported litigation handled by Olson, Hagel & Fishburn, LLP follows:

California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000) 120 S.Ct. 2402. Represented plaintiffs in litigation challenging constitutionality of Proposition 198 ("blanket" primary election).

California Prolife Council PAC v. Scully (9th Cir. 1999) 164 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 1999). Represented plaintiffs in one of five consolidated actions challenging Proposition 208 (campaign finance).

Bramberg v. Jones (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1045. Represented plaintiffs in challenge to constitutionality of Proposition 225 (disclosure of position on term limits).

County of Sonoma v. Commission on State Mandates (2000) 2000 WL 1725437. Represented Commission on State Mandates in litigation involving propriety of Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds involving billions of dollars in revenue allocation.

California Standardbred Sires Stakes Committee v. California Horse Racing Board (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 751. Represented defendant state agency in suit alleging conflict-of-interest violations in setting horse racing calendar.

Lungren v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 435. Represented plaintiffs in challenge to official ballot title and summary of Proposition 209 (affirmative action).

Stebbins v. Gonzalez (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1198. Represented school board candidate in election contest.

Valeria G. v. Wilson (N.D. Cal. 1998) 12 F.Supp.2d 1007. Represented amicus curiae in challenge to immediate application of Proposition 227 (bilingual education).

McLaughlin v. State Board of Education (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 196. Represented amicus curiae in determination of authority of State Board of Education to grant waivers to school districts on application of Proposition 227 (bilingual education).

Andal v. Miller (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 358. Represented Board of Equalization candidate in challenge to candidate's ballot designation.

American Lung Association v. Wilson (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 743. Represented plaintiffs in suit to enforce funding provisions of Proposition 99 (tobacco tax).

Planning and Conservation League v. Lungren (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 497. Represented plaintiff in challenge to statute regulating the process by which initiatives qualify for ballot.

Kennedy Wholesale v. Board of Equalization (1991) 53 Cal.3d 245. Represented proponents of Proposition 99 (tobacco tax) as amici curiae in litigation challenging validity of Proposition 99.

Attorneys:

Deborah Caplan
N. Eugene Hill
Lance Olson
Richard C. Miadich

Social Security | Political/Government Law | Newsroom | Home