Jack Salzman, Cornel West Struggles in the Promised

Affirmative Action: Action: Jewish Ideals, Jewish Interests Interests \\ 311
Court accepted that that proportionality proportionality should continue continue to be an important factor in
assessing Section 2 claims.
As for Jewish groups' involvement, AJCongress, joined by the Greater Miami
Jewish Federation (the local umbrella for Jewish social and community services),
filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the legislature's plan. The ADL, while not
supporting any party in the case, asserted that courts are not required to maximize
the number of "majority-minority" districts when evaluating the reapportionment
plan under the Voting Rights Act. Most other Jewish groups, reflecting
their ambiguous stances on redistricting, stayed out ofDeGrandy.
Other significant cases decided during the 1990s have had little direct fallout
for Jews. One of the most significant cases since Gingles tested a bizarrely shaped
district in North Carolina. The Supreme Court in Shaw v. Reno (1993) ruled that
North Carolina state officials, in their efforts to justify a serpentine district to
boost Black or Hispanic representation, might have violated the rights of white
voters. To Jewish organizations, concerned about reverse discrimination as well as
Black-Jewish relations, Shaw v. Reno went beyond the districting issue. The decision
appeared to be consistent with the ruling in Richmond v. Cnson (1989) that
racial preferences, such as minority "set-asides," are unconstitutional because they
violate the Constitution's equal-protection guarantees, unless there is distinct evidence
that they are needed to correct a specific past discrimination and not a generalized
societal discrimination. Although no Jewish organization entered Shaw as
a friend of the court, "many of them welcomed the decision." 52
If analysts thought that the Supreme Court could not make things murkier,
in fact the High Court did just that in Miller v. Johnson (1995). In a 5—4 decision
that confused Jewish and Black groups alike, the Court articulated a new test for
using race in drawing legislative districts, saying that a district, even one not
bizarrely shaped, could be found constitutionally suspect if race was the "predominant
factor" in drawing the district lines. Jewish and civil-rights agencies
immediately asked, What is the threshold at which race becomes the "predominant
factor"? 5 assessing Section 2 claims.
As for Jewish groups' involvement, AJCongress, joined by the Greater Miami
Jewish Federation (the local umbrella for Jewish social and community services),
filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the legislature's plan. The ADL, while not
supporting any party in the case, asserted that courts are not required to maximize
the number of "majority-minority" districts when evaluating the reapportionment
plan under the Voting Rights Act. Most other Jewish groups, reflecting
their ambiguous stances on redistricting, stayed out ofDeGrandy.
Other significant cases decided during the 1990s have had little direct fallout
for Jews. One of the most significant cases since Gingles tested a bizarrely shaped
district in North Carolina. The Supreme Court in Shaw v. Reno (1993) ruled that
North Carolina state officials, in their efforts to justify a serpentine district to
boost Black or Hispanic representation, might have violated the rights of white
voters. To Jewish organizations, concerned about reverse discrimination as well as
Black-Jewish relations, Shaw v. Reno went beyond the districting issue. The decision
appeared to be consistent with the ruling in Richmond v. Cnson (1989) that
racial preferences, such as minority "set-asides," are unconstitutional because they
violate the Constitution's equal-protection guarantees, unless there is distinct evidence
that they are needed to correct a specific past discrimination and not a generalized
societal discrimination. Although no Jewish organization entered Shaw as
a friend of the court, "many of them welcomed the decision."
'
52
If analysts thought that the Supreme Court could not make things murkier,
in fact the High Court did just that in Miller v. Johnson (1995). In a 5—4 decision
that confused Jewish and Black groups alike, the Court articulated a new test for
using race in drawing legislative districts, saying that a district, even one not
bizarrely shaped, could be found constitutionally suspect if race was the "predominant
factor" in drawing the district lines. Jewish and civil-rights agencies
immediately asked, What is the threshold at which race becomes the "predominant
factor"? 5 '
//
To date, very few Jewish communities have been affected by voting-rights situations.
54 To date, very few Jewish communities have been affected by voting-rights situations.
But as new reapportionment schemes involving members of Congress are
tested in the courts, this is likely to change. Nonetheless, the issue of districting
and reapportionment has been viewed as a source of tension between Jewish agencies
and Black civil-rights groups such as the NAACP Legal Defense and
Education Fund, Inc. Jewish organizations have had to make the case that even if
they may in some instances, based on local circumstances, argue against civilrights
groups in voting-rights cases, their motive is not opposition to minoritygroup
political empowerment.
The dilemma for the organized Jewish community was articulated in a series
54 But as new reapportionment schemes involving members of Congress are
tested in the courts, this is likely to change. Nonetheless, the issue of districting
and reapportionment has been viewed as a source of tension between Jewish agencies
and Black civil-rights groups such as the NAACP Legal Defense and
Education Fund, Inc. Jewish organizations have had to make the case that even if
they may in some instances, based on local circumstances, argue against civilrights
groups in voting-rights cases, their motive is not opposition to minoritygroup
political empowerment.
The dilemma for the organized Jewish community was articulated in a series