Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey

Supreme Court of the United States · 1977 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionFifteenth AmendmentVoting Rights ActRedistrictingSection 5 preclearanceracial redistrictingnonretrogression

Facts

Because Kings County was covered by §§ 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act, New York had to obtain federal approval before implementing its reapportionment plan. The Attorney General objected to the 1972 plan as to certain Kings County districts, and New York then revised the plan to create more substantial nonwhite majorities, including districts in the range of about 65% nonwhite. Those revisions split the Hasidic Jewish community of Williamsburgh between two senate and two assembly districts, and petitioners alleged that this race-conscious districting diluted their votes and assigned them by race in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The revised plan was later approved by the Attorney General, and petitioners sued to block its enforcement.

Issue

Whether New York's deliberate use of racial criteria in revising district lines for Kings County, in order to obtain § 5 preclearance and increase certain districts to about 65% nonwhite, violated the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment. More specifically, the question was whether such race-conscious redistricting and use of numerical minority targets were unconstitutional in the circumstances presented.

Rule

Neither the Fourteenth nor the Fifteenth Amendment establishes a per se prohibition on the use of racial factors in districting and apportionment. A State subject to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act may deliberately create or preserve minority-majority districts, and may use specific numerical minority percentages as a means of maintaining minority voting strength and securing compliance with § 5, so long as the plan does not fence out another racial group from the political process, unfairly minimize or cancel out its voting strength, or otherwise deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nevada, a jurisdiction covered by § 5 for one county, redraws legislative districts in Reno after federal reviewers object that the new map may reduce Latino voters' effective electoral strength. The legislature responds by increasing the Latino population in two districts to about 64% and openly states that race was considered to secure preclearance. White voters from those districts sue, arguing that any deliberate use of race in districting is unconstitutional.

How should a court rule on the white voters' constitutional claim?

Explanation. The controlling rule rejects any per se constitutional prohibition on considering race in redistricting. A covered State may deliberately create or preserve minority-majority districts, and may use numerical percentages, when attempting to comply with § 5's nonretrogression requirements. The plan remains constitutional so long as it does not fence another racial group out of the political process, unfairly minimize or cancel out its voting strength, or otherwise deny or abridge voting rights on account of race.