United Jewish Org. of Williamsburgh v. Carey
Case Date: 10/06/1976
Docket No: none
|
Congress provided in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act that reapportionment plans of several states were to be submitted to the U.S. attorney general or the District Court of the District of Columbia for approval. Several districts in New York were restructured to create districts with a minimum nonwhite majority of 65 percent. A Hasidic Jewish community was split in two by the reapportionment. The community claimed that the plan violated their constitutional rights because the districts had been assigned solely on a racial basis. QuestionDid the reapportionment plan violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights of the Hasidic community? Argument United Jewish Org. of Williamsburgh v. Carey - Oral ArgumentFull Transcript Text Download MP3United Jewish Org. of Williamsburgh v. Carey - Opinion Announcement Download MP3 Conclusion Decision: 7 votes for Carey, 1 vote(s) against Legal provision: Equal ProtectionThe Court found that the reapportionment plan was valid under the Constitution. Neither the Fourteenth nor the Fifteenth Amendment prohibit per se use of racial factors in districting and apportionment. Also, a reapportionment plan does not violate the same Amendments by using numerical quotas to establish a certain number of black majority districts. Although New York deliberately increased nonwhite majorities in several districts, there was no "fencing out" of the white population in the county from electoral participation. The reapportionment did not underrepresent the whites relative to their share of the population. The Court found that New York could use apportionment plans to attempt to prevent racial minorities from being repeatedly outvoted at the expense of the white populations. |