## Facts

- Kings County (Brooklyn), New York, was covered by §§ 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, requiring federal preclearance for redistricting changes.
- New York enacted a 1972 reapportionment plan, but the U.S. Attorney General objected to certain Kings County districts because the State had not shown the changes lacked a discriminatory purpose or effect.
- In 1974, New York revised the plan for parts of Kings County to address the objection and obtain preclearance.
- The revision kept the same number of nonwhite-majority districts but increased the nonwhite percentage in some districts, targeting roughly a 65% nonwhite majority in certain areas.
- To reach that percentage, the State reassigned part of the white population, including part of the Hasidic Jewish community in Williamsburg, to an adjoining assembly district and split the community between two senatorial districts.
- The United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh and individuals challenged the 1974 plan, alleging that the State divided their community and assigned voters to districts based on race, diluting their voting strength in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
- A three-judge federal district court dismissed the complaint; the Second Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the Voting Rights Act permitted race-conscious corrective line drawing and that the plan did not underrepresent white voters.

## Issues

1. Whether New York’s race-conscious revisions to its Kings County districts, undertaken to satisfy Voting Rights Act § 5 preclearance concerns, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the revisions abridged voting rights on account of race in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment, including by unlawfully diluting the political influence of the Hasidic community.
3. Whether the Constitution categorically forbids the use of racial targets in districting where the State claims a remedial, Voting Rights Act–compliance purpose.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the 1974 redistricting plan.
- A plurality concluded the plan was constitutional and did not violate the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments.
- The Court rejected a per se rule against considering race in districting and found no showing that white voters were “fenced out” of political participation.
- The Court relied on findings that whites were not underrepresented in Kings County under the 1974 plan, including that a substantial majority of districts retained white majorities despite whites comprising a smaller share of the county population.
- The Court treated the State’s actions as a permissible effort to comply with the Voting Rights Act preclearance process after the Attorney General’s objection to the 1972 plan.

## Legal Principles

- The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments do not categorically prohibit the consideration of race in districting and apportionment.
- Race-conscious districting measures may be permissible when used as a remedial or compliance tool under federal voting-rights protections, including the Voting Rights Act.
- A redistricting plan does not violate equal protection or the Fifteenth Amendment merely because it increases minority majorities or uses numerical racial targets, absent proof that other voters are excluded from participation or underrepresented in a constitutionally significant way.
- Claims of unconstitutional vote dilution require more than community splitting; the challenger must show a concrete, legally cognizable reduction of effective political participation or representation.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld New York’s race-conscious Kings County redistricting adopted to secure Voting Rights Act § 5 preclearance, holding that limited use of race to strengthen minority-majority districts was not unconstitutional where white voters were not fenced out of the political process or underrepresented in the county’s overall districting scheme.


United Jewish Orgs. of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U.S. 144 (1977)