Patterson Belknap is a longstanding advocate of equal voting access for all, and remains steadfast in safeguarding this fundamental right and the integrity of our democracy. On behalf of our clients, firm attorneys have challenged the constitutionality of gerrymandering and other voter suppression tactics that aim to hinder voters from voicing their interests. A few highlights of recent representations are outlined below.
Patterson Belknap was appointed by the Division on Civil Rights in the New Jersey Attorney General's Office to lead an investigation into a miscount in the November 2022 General Election in Monmouth County, New Jersey. The firm conducted an inquiry into the recording, tabulation, reporting, and certification of votes cast in the election to assist the Division of Civil Rights in determining whether any person or entity violated the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. The firm reviewed and evaluated election policies and proposed election reforms in New Jersey to ensure free and fair elections in the state.
In November 2024, the Firm filed an amicus brief on behalf of 18 election officials, and in partnership with the Brennan Center for Justice, in support of the Arizona Secretary of State and the trial court’s decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes. The brief argues that restricting signature-matching practices for mail-in ballots to the voter registration form is overly restrictive and inconsistent with best practices in election administration.
The firm filed an amicus brief in Georgia Supreme Court on behalf of constitutional law scholars in support of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners’ (the “Board”) right to reject partisan nominees in the county’s Board of Registration and Elections. The case was brought by the Fulton County Republican Party, arguing that the Board must approve whomever the party nominates for its two designated seats, and that the Board had wrongfully refused to appoint its nominees. The brief responded that appointment power is inherently discretionary under both the U.S. and Georgia constitutions. The brief argued that the statute establishing the Board of Registration and Elections validly preserved the Board’s authority to reject party nominees, and called for the Court to affirm the Court of Appeals’ ruling.
The firm filed an amicus brief in defense of a Maine campaign-finance restriction against a First Amendment challenge. The law at issue would place a $5,000 annual limit on contributions from individuals and business entities to super PACs. The district court struck down the law on the basis that it was inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C. The amicus brief explained that the Supreme Court has always sharply distinguished between expenditures and contributions, subjecting contribution limits to less exacting scrutiny, and that the rationale behind the distinction supported upholding the law.