Jack Salzman, Cornel West Struggles in the Promised

330 // THEODORE M. SHAW
resolved long-standing litigation concerning judicial elections. In sum, since the
Supreme Court decided Shaw v. Reno in 1993, white voters have attacked electoral
plans which have afforded minority political opportunities on the congressional,
state, and local levels. Each success encourages more challenges. Unless
the federal courts signal a halt, or at least some limitations on the assault on
majority-minority districts, political opportunities for African Americans, especially
in southern jurisdictions, will be significantly curtailed. This is the context
in which the ADL's brief in Miller v. Johnson must be considered.
The backdrop against which the ADL's decision to support white plaintiffs in
Miller v. Johnson must be viewed extends beyond the merits of the Georgia case.
Tensions between African Americans and Jews were evident in United Jewish
Organizations of Williamsburgh (UJ.O.) v. Carey, which the Supreme Court decided
in 1977. UJ.O. involved a challenge to a New York State legislative redistricting
scheme which split a Hasidic Jewish community in the Williamsburgh
section of Brooklyn that had previously formed a majority of the voters in a state
senate district. Prior to the adoption of the new plan, Hasidic Jews were concentrated
in an assembly district that was 39 percent white and in a Senate district
that was 63 percent white. The Justice Department exercised authority under
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and rejected New York's 1972 redistricting
plan because the legislature failed to demonstrate that the redistricting had neither
the purpose nor effect of abridging the right to vote for reasons of race or
color. The Hasidic plaintiffs argued that the challenged plan diluted the value of
their franchise in order to achieve a racial quota, and that they were assigned to
electoral districts solely on the basis of race. 22
The Supreme Court ruled, contrary to the arguments of the UJ.O. plaintiffs,
that neither the Fourteenth nor the Fifteenth Amendment prohibited consideration
of race by legislatures seeking to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
Moreover, the plaintiffs could not successfully claim that they suffered a constitutional
injury because white voters continued to hold more than a proportionate
share of the state legislative seats. The Court rejected the plaintiffs' quota arguments
and further ruled that the legislature could constitutionally employ
numerical objectives in attempting to assure that groups protected under
the Voting Rights Act are afforded a fair opportunity to choose their political
representatives.
The Court's decision in UJ.O. reflected nuances and tensions between African
American and Jews that reveal fundamental differences in how each group negotiates
its status as a minority. The UJ.O. plaintiffs eschewed any attempt to seek
special recognition within the political process even as they complained that the
challenged legislative districting plan "diluted the value of their franchise." Since
the plan left white voters over-represented, the dilution claim could not have been
based on their status as white voters; it must have been a reference to their status
as Jewish voters. Thus, in spite of their disclaimer that they were not seeking
"permanent recognition as a community in legislative reapportionment," and
even as they argued that race should not be considered in the districting process,