United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey

1977-03-01

Headline: Voting Rights Act upheld as allowing states to use race-based districting to secure federal approval, permitting creation of majority-minority districts while some local communities lose unified representation.

Holding: The Court ruled that under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, New York could use racial criteria to reshape districts to obtain Attorney General clearance and did not violate the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments.

Real World Impact:

Permits covered states to use race to create majority-minority districts when seeking federal approval.
Upheld Attorney General's role in screening and approving redistricting under Section 5.
Leaves local communities vulnerable to being split to meet racial percentage targets.

Topics: voting rights, redistricting, racial quotas, minority representation

Summary

Background

The plaintiffs are members of a Hasidic Jewish community in Williamsburg who challenged New York’s 1974 redistricting of Kings County. New York had submitted a 1972 plan to the Attorney General under the Voting Rights Act; the Attorney General objected to certain Kings County districts. The Legislature revised the plan for 1974, increasing nonwhite majorities in several state assembly and senate districts to roughly 65%, and split the Hasidic community between districts. Petitioners sued claiming a racial quota diluted their votes and violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; lower courts dismissed and the Second Circuit affirmed.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether using race to win federal approval under Section 5 violated the Constitution. It held Section 5 and the Attorney General’s screening power are constitutional and that Beer and related cases allow covered jurisdictions to increase minority percentages to avoid “retrogression.” Because petitioners produced no evidence showing the 1974 plan increased minority strength compared to the 1966 baseline, the Court found no constitutional violation and accepted that a 65% population target could be reasonable to secure a voting-age majority.

Real world impact

The ruling lets covered States and local legislatures consider race when redrawing lines to obtain federal clearance, and it affirms the Attorney General’s role in screening plans. At the same time the decision recognizes that such practices can split local communities and intensifies scrutiny and debate over numerical racial targets. The opinion leaves room for factual challenges where plaintiffs can show concrete retrogression or discriminatory intent or effect.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurrence stressed deference to the Attorney General but warned about fairness of explicit numerical race rules. A dissent argued that mechanically applying a 65% quota constituted unconstitutional racial gerrymandering and favored remanding for facts. These separate views highlight continuing controversy over race-conscious redistricting.