Political Law

The BakerHostetler team is extraordinary. Its particular strengths are creativity matched with sound strategy.

— Chambers USA 2026

BakerHostetler’s Political Law team advises clients on the full spectrum of laws and regulations governing political activity, campaigns and elections, redistricting, lobbying and advocacy, and government ethics.

Successfully defended Ohio’s state legislative and congressional districting plans against partisan gerrymandering challenges before the Ohio Supreme Court and federal court, respectively, in Wilson v. Cox (2011) and Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Householder (2019).
Represented the prevailing candidates in Ohio congressional (2018) and North Carolina Supreme Court races (2020) in recount and election contests.
Represented legislative leadership in redistricting litigation in Pennsylvania (2018) and North Carolina (2019).
Assisted winning candidates in defending their wins throughout recounts and election contests for multiple races in the 2017 Virginia House of Delegates elections.
Represented a client regarding reapportionment of legislative districts in Georgia in Larios v. Cox. The U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed the judgment of a three-judge panel in favor of our client.
Defended the 2011 redistricting plan drawn by the Virginia House of Delegates against claims of racial gerrymandering in Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, a case brought before a three-judge panel.
Represented intervening minority plaintiffs in the redistricting case Georgia v. Ashcroft, and prevailed in the U.S. Supreme Court after oral argument.
Represented the Ohio General Assembly in Ohio State Conference of the NAACP v. Husted (2014), defending legislation prescribing rules for early voting.
Initiated litigation in Ohio seeking to enjoin practice where some county boards of election sent applications for absent voter’s ballots to all electors in the county and some would pre-pay the postage to return the application and/or ballot unless all Ohio counties were required to take the same approach under the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause. Vanzant v. Brunner, S.D. Ohio No. 1:10-cv-00596.