United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh v. Carey
430 U.S. 144 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's use of racial criteria in drawing legislative district lines to comply with the preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 does not violate the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment, provided the plan does not fence out white voters from the political process or unfairly dilute their voting strength as a group.
Facts:
- Due to its use of a literacy test and low voter turnout in 1968, Kings County, New York, became subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
- This required New York to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Attorney General for its 1972 legislative reapportionment plan.
- The Attorney General objected to the 1972 plan for Kings County, finding the state had not proven the plan lacked a racially discriminatory purpose or effect, noting abnormal concentrations and diffusions of nonwhite voters.
- To satisfy the Attorney General's objections, New York state officials created a revised plan in 1974.
- In crafting the 1974 plan, state legislators deliberately redrew district lines to create several state senate and assembly districts with approximately 65% nonwhite majorities.
- This redistricting split a geographically compact community of about 30,000 Hasidic Jews, represented by United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, between two new senate and two new assembly districts to achieve the 65% nonwhite population target in those districts.
Procedural Posture:
- United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh sued New York officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking to enjoin the 1974 reapportionment plan.
- The District Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The petitioners (United Jewish Organizations) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- A divided Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state's use of racial criteria to create legislative districts with specific nonwhite population majorities, undertaken to comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, violate the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment rights of voters who are reassigned to different districts as a result of their race?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. A reapportionment plan that uses racial criteria to comply with the Voting Rights Act does not violate the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment. The Court affirmed on two grounds. First, compliance with the Voting Rights Act, which is constitutional, is a permissible basis for using racial criteria. The Act's 'non-retrogression' principle established in Beer v. United States requires that redistricting not weaken the position of minority voters, which inherently involves considering race. Second, even aside from the Act, the plan was constitutional because it did not represent a 'racial slur or stigma' against white voters, nor did it 'minimize or unfairly cancel out white voting strength.' Since the plan left white voters with a majority in 70% of the county's districts while they constituted 65% of the population, their voting power as a group was not unfairly diluted.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
No. The judgment should be affirmed, but solely on the grounds that the state's action was a valid effort to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The Act represents a carefully considered congressional scheme to remedy a history of voting discrimination. The oversight of the Attorney General ensures that the use of racial criteria is for a benign, remedial purpose. This narrow justification, based on the statutory context, is sufficient to decide the case without reaching the broader, more difficult constitutional question of whether 'benign' racial classifications to achieve proportional representation are generally permissible.
Concurring - Justice Stewart
No. The petitioners failed to show that the reapportionment plan had either the purpose or the effect of purposefully discriminating against them based on their race. Awareness of race during redistricting is not the equivalent of a discriminatory intent. The state's clear purpose was to comply with the Voting Rights Act, which forecloses any finding that it acted with an invidious purpose to discriminate against white voters. As there was no proof of purposeful discrimination, there is no constitutional violation.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger
Yes. The state's action violated the Constitution. Drawing political boundary lines with the sole, explicit objective of achieving a predetermined racial result is unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, as established in Gomillion v. Lightfoot. The mechanical adherence to a rigid 65% nonwhite quota, with race as the 'one and only criterion applied,' is impermissible. Furthermore, there was no evidence that this specific quota was necessary to satisfy the Voting Rights Act. This practice puts the state's imprimatur on the concept that race is a proper consideration in the electoral process, moving society away from the ideal of racial neutrality.
Analysis:
This case is significant for validating the use of race-conscious remedies under the Voting Rights Act. The Court's holding sanctioned what is often called 'benign' or 'remedial' racial gerrymandering, establishing that states subject to Section 5 can intentionally create 'majority-minority' districts to avoid diluting minority voting strength. This decision provided a constitutional foundation for such districts but also set the stage for future litigation, like Shaw v. Reno, which would later scrutinize the limits of race-based districting and question whether such plans, even if remedial, could still be unconstitutional if race was the predominant factor and traditional districting principles were ignored.
Unlock the full brief for United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh v. Carey