Laserfiche WebLink
Bickerstaff <br />Heath Delgado Acosta LLP <br />C. Robert Heath <br />PARTNER <br />AUSTIN OFFICE. <br />3711 S. MoPac Expressway, <br />Building One, Suite 300 <br />Austin, Texas 78746 <br />Attorney Overview <br />Phone: 512-472-8021 <br />Fax: 512-320-5638 <br />Email: bheath@bickerstaff.com <br />Bob Heath's redistricting experience began in 1971 when, as a legislative <br />aide, he assisted in the preparation of state senate districting plans. <br />Following the 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010 censuses, he represented many <br />governmental bodies during the redistricting process. This representation <br />included preparation of plans using the firm's in-house GIS system and <br />preparation of submissions to the Department of Justice under section 5 of <br />the Voting Rights Act. In 2001, he advised the Texas Legislative <br />Redistricting Board, and in 2003, he advised the Texas Senate on <br />redistricting. In 2002, he was retained by the Attorney General to assist in <br />defending the state's redistricting plans. The redistricting following the <br />2020 census will be the sixth decennial redistricting in which he has <br />worked. Mr. Heath has also served as counsel in many important voting <br />rights cases. <br />Representative Experience <br />The firm has advised more than 100 governmental entities and has <br />prepared hundreds of submissions to the Department of Justice. Its clients <br />have included counties, cities, community college districts, school districts, <br />and special districts as well as the State of Texas. The following list includes <br />some of the voting rights cases in which the firm represented a <br />governmental entity. In each case, Mr. Heath either served as lead counsel <br />or had a major role in the representation. <br />Patino v. City of Pasadena, 230 F.Supp.3d 667 (S.D. Tex. 2017). The firm <br />defended a city that had replaced its single -member -district election <br />system with a mixed system containing both single -member districts and at <br />-large positions. The court ruled for the plaintiffs, and, following a change <br />of administration, the city decided not to pursue its appeal. <br />Dacus v. Parker, 466 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. 2015). The firm represented the <br />City of Houston in the Texas Supreme Court defending the wording of a <br />ballot proposition. The Court disapproved of six prior appellate cases and <br />ruled against the city. <br />3BARD <br />CERTIFIED' <br />Texas Board of Legal Specialization <br />ADMINISTRATIVE LAW <br />Practice Areas <br />Voting Rights & <br />Redistricting <br />e Elections <br />4 Civil Litigation <br />e General Administrative <br />4 Open Government <br />e Annexation & Land Use <br />♦ Cities <br />® Counties <br />♦ Higher Education <br />® Schools <br />t Special Districts <br />Education <br />The University of Texas <br />School of Law, J.D.— Friar <br />Society <br />The University of Texas at <br />Austin, B.A <br />Admissions <br />Supreme Court of Texas, <br />1972 <br />Supreme Court of the <br />United States <br />www.bickerstaff.com <br />Austin El Paso Houston McAllen <br />