Petitioner
United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc.
Respondents
Carey, Governor of New York, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
The redistricting plan of 1974 for portions of Kings County, New York, wouldnegate the effectiveness of the Hasidic Jew vote. The petitioner claimed thatthe sole purpose of the redistricting was to achieve a racial quota, and thecommunity was assigned to voting districts solely by racial standards. Theyclaimed this violated their rights under both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Nathan Lewin
Chief Lawyer for Respondents
George D. Zuckerman, Assistant Attorney General of New York
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H.Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White (writing for theCourt)
Justices Dissenting
Warren E. Burger (Thurgood Marshall did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
1 March 1977
Decision
The reapportionment plan was valid under the U.S. Constitution and did not violate the constitutional rights of the Hasidic Jews.
Significance
The ruling on United Jewish Organizations v. Carey addressed the constitutionality of reapportionment plans for voting districts based solely uponracial factors. Because the state could provide evidence that the plan followed the actions required in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and did not preventwhite or nonwhite voters from exercising their right to participate in the political process by the redistricting of Kings County, the Court found that the reapportionment plan did not violate Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights of the Hasidic community of Williamsburgh.
Prior to 1974, it was determined that the Kings, New York (Manhattan), and Bronx Counties utilized a literacy test to qualify voters, and that in 1968, fewer than 50 percent of the voting age residents of these counties participated in the presidential election. These two instances caused the state to be subject to provisions under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that prohibited the discrimination of voters based on racial considerations. In May of 1974, in order to comply with the act, New York State submitted a plan to the attorney general to reapportion the voting districts of Kings County. This plan was meant to realign voting districts to create nonwhite majorities. While this reapportionment did not change the size of the districts, it did change the number of nonwhites in the districts to an approximate 65 percent majority.
In particular, the Hasidic Jewish community of Williamsburgh was divided in half and one portion was reassigned to a neighboring electoral district. As aresult of this redistricting, the Hasidic community claimed that their rightsunder the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution had been violated. Their claim was that the reapportionment devalued their collective effectiveness by reducing it "solely for achieving a racial quota, and that they were assigned to electoral districts solely on the basis ofrace." The Hasidic community identified this as a case of racial gerrymandering, or the division of a county to create voting majorities in several districts while concentrating the voting minorities in as few districts as possible.
The district court dismissed the case, stating that the Hasidic Jewish community was not recognized as a separate community and "enjoyed no constitutionalright in reapportionment" as such. The court of appeals affirmed the decision. A writ of certiorari was issued whereby the proceedings were remanded to the Supreme Court for review and action. The Supreme Court justices, after review and deliberation, also upheld the decision.
Points of Affirmation
In a 7-1 vote with one abstention, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision ofthe lower courts. Justice White, announcing the Court's decision, concludedthat the 1974 reapportionment plan for the state of New York and Kings Countywas not in violation of the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The use of racial criteria in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was warranted in this circumstance. The plan also complied with the requirement that approval of the redistricting be sought from the attorney general as specified in the Voting Rights Act.
White cited five points upon which the decision was made. First, under section five of the Voting Rights Acts, states may not adopt new or revised reapportionment plans without first seeking the approval of either the attorney general of the United States or the District Court for the District of Columbia.In 1972, the state of New York submitted a reapportionment plan which was subsequently denied by the attorney general. In May of 1974, a revised plan wasonce again submitted and received approval. The attorney general ruled that "the plan [did] not have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect."
The next three points which the Court identified as upholding the decision ofthe lower courts were based upon the use of racial criteria in establishingnonwhite majorities. As established by the precedent set in Beer v. UnitedStates (1976), they found that "[c]ompliance with the Act in reapportionment cases will often necessitate the use of racial considerations in drawingdistrict lines." They interpreted this to mean that there were no statementsin the U.S. Constitution that prohibit the use of racial criteria in creating or preserving nonwhite electoral majorities. In conjunction with these considerations, the justices determined that it was permissible to use race to correct an imbalance in voting rights beyond "eliminating the effects of past discriminatory districting or apportionment," not confined to only past discrimination. Justices White, Brennan, Blackmun, and Stevens concluded that the use of "specific numerical quotas"--in this case 65 percent--was not in violation of either the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments. A state is not prohibited from using a specified quota to establish nonwhite majority districts.
The fifth and final point the justices examined was whether or not the redistricting plan increased the nonwhite majority and canceled out the white electoral participation through under-representation. The Hasidic community had already been identified as part of the white voting majority, and therefore, did not have separate protection under the Constitution. The redistricting planleft an approximate 70 percent white majority in the assembly and senate electoral districts for Kings County, which had a county-wide population of 65 percent white. This was a proportionally balanced voting majority, as observedby the court of appeals in New York as well as by the U.S. Supreme Court. The reapportionment plan improved the majority-minority percentage and providedmore equitable political power to the nonwhite voters. Justice White, writing for the majority, stated that "there was no fencing out of the white population from participation in the political processes of the county, and the plan did not minimize or unfairly cancel out white voting strength." The white community was equally represented by the electoral majorities based upon theirrelative share of the county population. White concluded that the plan couldbe seen as a means to alleviate the consequences of racial voting at the polls and to provide a reasonable allocation of political power between white and nonwhite voters in Kings County.
Impact
The decision in United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh v. Careywas both determined and supported by the precedents set in the Voting Act of1965, which protected the rights of nonwhite citizens to participate in the political process. In the 1990s, the United States Department of Justice was faced with concerns about the Voting Rights Act of 1965 expiring in the year 2007, and the African American population losing its right to vote. The Department of Justice announced a clarification of the Voting Rights Act, and stated that the voting rights were a permanent guarantee and will not expire. TheFifteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 expressly state that "no one may be denied the right to vote because of hisor her race or color. These prohibitions against racial discrimination in voting are permanent."
Related Cases
United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc.
Respondents
Carey, Governor of New York, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
The redistricting plan of 1974 for portions of Kings County, New York, wouldnegate the effectiveness of the Hasidic Jew vote. The petitioner claimed thatthe sole purpose of the redistricting was to achieve a racial quota, and thecommunity was assigned to voting districts solely by racial standards. Theyclaimed this violated their rights under both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Nathan Lewin
Chief Lawyer for Respondents
George D. Zuckerman, Assistant Attorney General of New York
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H.Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White (writing for theCourt)
Justices Dissenting
Warren E. Burger (Thurgood Marshall did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
1 March 1977
Decision
The reapportionment plan was valid under the U.S. Constitution and did not violate the constitutional rights of the Hasidic Jews.
Significance
The ruling on United Jewish Organizations v. Carey addressed the constitutionality of reapportionment plans for voting districts based solely uponracial factors. Because the state could provide evidence that the plan followed the actions required in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and did not preventwhite or nonwhite voters from exercising their right to participate in the political process by the redistricting of Kings County, the Court found that the reapportionment plan did not violate Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights of the Hasidic community of Williamsburgh.
Prior to 1974, it was determined that the Kings, New York (Manhattan), and Bronx Counties utilized a literacy test to qualify voters, and that in 1968, fewer than 50 percent of the voting age residents of these counties participated in the presidential election. These two instances caused the state to be subject to provisions under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that prohibited the discrimination of voters based on racial considerations. In May of 1974, in order to comply with the act, New York State submitted a plan to the attorney general to reapportion the voting districts of Kings County. This plan was meant to realign voting districts to create nonwhite majorities. While this reapportionment did not change the size of the districts, it did change the number of nonwhites in the districts to an approximate 65 percent majority.
In particular, the Hasidic Jewish community of Williamsburgh was divided in half and one portion was reassigned to a neighboring electoral district. As aresult of this redistricting, the Hasidic community claimed that their rightsunder the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution had been violated. Their claim was that the reapportionment devalued their collective effectiveness by reducing it "solely for achieving a racial quota, and that they were assigned to electoral districts solely on the basis ofrace." The Hasidic community identified this as a case of racial gerrymandering, or the division of a county to create voting majorities in several districts while concentrating the voting minorities in as few districts as possible.
The district court dismissed the case, stating that the Hasidic Jewish community was not recognized as a separate community and "enjoyed no constitutionalright in reapportionment" as such. The court of appeals affirmed the decision. A writ of certiorari was issued whereby the proceedings were remanded to the Supreme Court for review and action. The Supreme Court justices, after review and deliberation, also upheld the decision.
Points of Affirmation
In a 7-1 vote with one abstention, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision ofthe lower courts. Justice White, announcing the Court's decision, concludedthat the 1974 reapportionment plan for the state of New York and Kings Countywas not in violation of the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The use of racial criteria in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was warranted in this circumstance. The plan also complied with the requirement that approval of the redistricting be sought from the attorney general as specified in the Voting Rights Act.
White cited five points upon which the decision was made. First, under section five of the Voting Rights Acts, states may not adopt new or revised reapportionment plans without first seeking the approval of either the attorney general of the United States or the District Court for the District of Columbia.In 1972, the state of New York submitted a reapportionment plan which was subsequently denied by the attorney general. In May of 1974, a revised plan wasonce again submitted and received approval. The attorney general ruled that "the plan [did] not have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect."
The next three points which the Court identified as upholding the decision ofthe lower courts were based upon the use of racial criteria in establishingnonwhite majorities. As established by the precedent set in Beer v. UnitedStates (1976), they found that "[c]ompliance with the Act in reapportionment cases will often necessitate the use of racial considerations in drawingdistrict lines." They interpreted this to mean that there were no statementsin the U.S. Constitution that prohibit the use of racial criteria in creating or preserving nonwhite electoral majorities. In conjunction with these considerations, the justices determined that it was permissible to use race to correct an imbalance in voting rights beyond "eliminating the effects of past discriminatory districting or apportionment," not confined to only past discrimination. Justices White, Brennan, Blackmun, and Stevens concluded that the use of "specific numerical quotas"--in this case 65 percent--was not in violation of either the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments. A state is not prohibited from using a specified quota to establish nonwhite majority districts.
The fifth and final point the justices examined was whether or not the redistricting plan increased the nonwhite majority and canceled out the white electoral participation through under-representation. The Hasidic community had already been identified as part of the white voting majority, and therefore, did not have separate protection under the Constitution. The redistricting planleft an approximate 70 percent white majority in the assembly and senate electoral districts for Kings County, which had a county-wide population of 65 percent white. This was a proportionally balanced voting majority, as observedby the court of appeals in New York as well as by the U.S. Supreme Court. The reapportionment plan improved the majority-minority percentage and providedmore equitable political power to the nonwhite voters. Justice White, writing for the majority, stated that "there was no fencing out of the white population from participation in the political processes of the county, and the plan did not minimize or unfairly cancel out white voting strength." The white community was equally represented by the electoral majorities based upon theirrelative share of the county population. White concluded that the plan couldbe seen as a means to alleviate the consequences of racial voting at the polls and to provide a reasonable allocation of political power between white and nonwhite voters in Kings County.
Impact
The decision in United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh v. Careywas both determined and supported by the precedents set in the Voting Act of1965, which protected the rights of nonwhite citizens to participate in the political process. In the 1990s, the United States Department of Justice was faced with concerns about the Voting Rights Act of 1965 expiring in the year 2007, and the African American population losing its right to vote. The Department of Justice announced a clarification of the Voting Rights Act, and stated that the voting rights were a permanent guarantee and will not expire. TheFifteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 expressly state that "no one may be denied the right to vote because of hisor her race or color. These prohibitions against racial discrimination in voting are permanent."
Related Cases
- Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
- Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358 (1975).
- Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130 (1976).
- Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980).
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).
- Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995).
User Comments Add a comment…