SANFORD, FL — Nearly one month after shooting and killing Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman remains a free man. The Sanford Police maintain that Zimmerman’s conduct was legally justified under Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” legislation, enacted in 2005. The law eliminated the duty to avoid a confrontation and authorized the use of deadly force if there is a “reasonable belief” it is necessary to “prevent death or great bodily harm.”

Since the shooting on February 26, facts have emerged that suggest there may have been a racial element to Zimmerman’s violent conduct against a 17-year-old African-American. Zimmerman called the police to report Martin’s “suspicious” behavior, which he described as “just walking around looking about.” Zimmerman was a very frequent caller to 911, almost always reporting young black men.

Seven years ago, opponents of the “Stand Your Ground” legislation predicted it could lead to racially motivated killings. From Reuters, April 2005:

“For a House that talks about the culture of life it’s ironic that we would be devaluing life in this bill,” said Democratic state Rep. Dan Gelber of Miami Beach. “That’s exactly what we’re doing.” [...]

Critics say the measure could lead to racially motivated killings and promote deadly escalations of arguments.

“All this bill will do is sell more guns and possibly turn Florida into the OK Corral,” said Democratic state Rep. Irv Slosberg of Boca Raton. 

These objections, apparently, did not persuade Rep. Dennis Baxley, the bill’s chief sponsor and someone who hasn’t show a great deal of empathy for racial sensitivities in the past.

Baxley is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and has advocated for the production of a Florida license plate honoring “Confederate Heritage.” He also argued against removing a racial slur from the Florida state song.

Regarding his advocacy on behalf of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Baxley has said he is primarily concerned with preserving the state’s history. Speaking of his push for a Confederate license plate, Baxley said, “I hope it will be seen in the proper light. There has to be something done to preserve history, or there won’t be any history left to preserve.” He also noted that he sponsored legislation to create a license plate honoring Martin Luther King Jr.

After Trayvon Martin’s death, Baxley has continued to adamantly defend the law.

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s controversial 5-4 majority opinion in the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case specifically endorsed the idea of campaign finance disclosure. “Disclosure is the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations,” he wrote, adding that they ensure voters are informed enough about who is speaking to fully assess the content of the political message. But with a bitterly divided Federal Election Commission unable to issue regulations to enforce those principles, many political organizations have kept secret the names of the individuals and corporations funding their advertisements.

In 2010, a bill to expand disclosure passed the Democratic-controlled house of representatives, but failed by a single vote in the Senate as Republicans unified to filibuster the measure. That bill — the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act also contained provisions restricting
government contractors and foreign companies from political advertising.

Today, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and some of his Democratic colleagues unveiled a new attempt — the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 — focusing just on disclosure provisions. According to a fact sheet provided by Whitehouse’s office, the bill would require the following:

Any covered organization that spends $10,000 or more on campaign-related disbursements during an election cycle [must] file a disclosure report with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours, and [must] file a new report for each additional $10,000 or more that is spent, detailing the amount and nature of each expenditure over $1,000 and the names of all of its donors who gave $10,000 or more.

Covered organizations include super PACs and tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organizations. Additionally, the ads would have to list the top donors behind the message.

With outside groups spending millions and hugely unpopular, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says Democrats are hopeful that even in a more Republican congress, the bill might attract bipartisan support. The Senate’s rules committee, which Schumer chairs, will begin considering the bill at a hearing next week.

Like many of his Republican colleagues, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has indicated many times that he believes campaign finance disclosure — not limits — is the best way to ensure a just political system. With this new DISCLOSE Act, they will once again be forced to show whether they actually believe it.

Our guest blogger is Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet

Forgive my frustration, but on the subject of Internet privacy, I feel just a little bit like we’re all starring in a remake of the movie “Groundhog Day.”

Every couple of weeks, the press exposes a company doing something with our information we intuitively know is unfair. The next day, politicians send outraged press releases and letters.

But nothing changes.

And we know Americans want change. The Pew Internet and American Life Project recently reported that sixty-eight percent of Americans are not OK with targeted advertising because they don’t want their online activities tracked and analyzed. And they certainly don’t like feeling powerless to control the tracking. Only 38 percent of Internet users say they knew how to limit the information an online company collects on them. I believe those two data points are related and that if we required collectors to give Americans more and easier to use control over their information, they would be less squeamish about its collection and use.

So why is there talk but no legislative action to give Americans control over their own identities?

Because there’s not enough activism.

Politicians will always acknowledge that polls aren’t a great indication of public opinion. Activism is — because activism reflects intensity.

For decades, Americans told pollsters they didn’t want lakes that caught on fire and drinking water that tasted funny.

But Richard Nixon didn’t feel compelled to sign the EPA into existence until millions of people poured into the streets on the First Earth Day and demanded it.

That’s the difference between opinion and activism, ideas vs. intensity.

I can tell you that there are many companies collecting information on you right now lobbying hard against any new law governing what they do. Even more troubling – they believe that you don’t have or should not have any “rights” when it comes to your information. I disagree, and so does this Administration.

But we need to start a movement that actually gets us somewhere — resulting in passage of the Kerry-McCain Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights. Read more

Former Pennsylvania State Rep. Sam Rohrer (R) is leading the GOP field for his party’s nomination for U.S. Senate, according to the latest PPP poll. He is seeking the right to challenge Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D) in November.

But Rohrer holds some downright crazy views on American politics and the role of government — arguing that the federal government has only three roles, suggesting that voters should no longer be trusted to elect their own U.S. senators, and even once likening drivers’ licenses to slavery.

Here are seven of his most outrageous statements:

Since his proposed repeal of the 17th Amendment is not yet a reality, on April 24, Republican primary voters get the chance to decide whether they share Rohrer’s radical positions. Rohrer had just better hope none of them have to take a federal highway to get to the polls.

ORLANDO — George Zimmerman, who shot and killed Trayvon Martin on February 26, hasn’t just avoided arrest — he is still licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the State of Florida. This morning, local civil rights leaders called on Gov. Rick Scott (R) to suspend Zimmerman’s concealed carry permit to protect the public.

Wesley T. Leonard of the Florida Civil Rights Association, flanked by numerous civil rights attorneys, clergy and community activists, spoke outside the office of the state’s licensing division in Orlando. The group argues that “Mr. Zimmerman is not fit to maintain his license because he has demonstrated to be a clear threat to public safety.”

Ordinarily, a concealed permit in Florida can only be suspended after an arrest. But in an interview with ThinkProgress, Orlando civil rights attorney Shayan Elahi explained that Scott has broad executive powers that gives him the authority to suspend Zimmerman’s license in the name of public safety.

Elahi argued that action by Scott was essential in light of the “botched” investigation by the Sanford police, which accepted Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense despite numerous witnesses and other evidence that conflicts with his account. Zimmerman would then be able to contest the suspension at an administrative proceeding within 20 days.

Thus far, Scott’s administration is defending its decision to keep Zimmerman’s permit active, arguing that “short of a permit holder being convicted of a felony, the state does not have the authority to revoke a permit.”

Elahi also criticized the decision of Brevard-Seminole State Attorney Norman Wolfinger to send the case to a grand jury rather than charging Zimmerman himself. According to Elahi there is concern in the Florida civil rights community that these proceedings are secret, so the public will never know what evidence is or is not presented to a grand jury. If Zimmerman was simply charged, all proceedings would take place in open court.

Last May, Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature passed a vote suppression bill that radically overhauled the state’s election laws, reducing the time available for early voting, invalidating absentee ballots if the voter’s signature doesn’t closely match the one on file, and forcing provisional ballots for voters whose names or addresses have changed. At the time, numerous state publications and critics noted that this was most likely intended to cripple turnout among low-income voters, seniors, students, and minorities who tend to lean Democratic.

Because parts of Florida are covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, after Gov. Rick Scott (R) signed the controversial bill, it went to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for a pre-clearance review. Though the DOJ determined that several of the key changes were not valid under federal law, Florida filed a lawsuit seeking to preserve the law.

In a filing yesterday, the DOJ told the court:

As to the voter registration, early voting, and inter-county movers sets of voting changes enacted by Chapter 2011-40, amending Fla. Stat. §§ 97.0575, 101.657, and 101.045, respectively, the United States’ position is that the State of Florida has not met its burden of proof under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, on behalf of its covered counties, that these three sets of proposed voting changes neither have the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.

In an earlier filing, the DOJ observed that the law, as written, would have a retrogressive effect on voting rights.

Since that may have been the Florida Republican’s intent to begin with, it will be interesting to watch the state to try to prove to the court that this voter suppression bill will not have the effect of voter suppression.

Last Friday, the Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed an ethics complaint against conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser. Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck during an argument in her chambers and the commission urged the high court to have a panel of three appeals court judges consider whether his actions violated three ethics rules.

Under that proposal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court would review the panel’s findings and decide on Prosser’s fate. But yesterday, the embattled judge — who has explained the alleged assault as a “total reflex” reaction after Bradley “charged” him — suggested his own audacious proposal.

Prosser said all six of his supreme court colleagues should recuse themselves from the case, which would have the apparent effect of killing the proceedings.

“You have six justices who were present at the scene,” Prosser explained, “You have justices with actual bias who are eyewitnesses and, in effect, parties.” A former Republican Wisconsin house speaker, he also blasted the judicial commission for being “partisan.”

By Prosser’s logic, justices would be able to escape punishment by their colleagues for any indiscretion — as long as they committed it in the presence of the rest of the court.

By the all-too-familiar 5-4 split, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that workers cannot sue state governments for monetary damages when denied the unpaid time off guaranteed by the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The 1993 law provided those with full-time jobs at private companies of more than 50 employees and employees of federal, state, and local public governments up to 12 workweeks of unpaid, job-protected leave annually for family and medical reasons.

But the Supreme Court’s plurality in this case, Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, said that citizens can only sue state governments for damages when Congress finds “a pattern of constitutional violations” and tailors “a remedy congruent and proportional to the documented violations.” This sovereign immunity means that, while state employees have the right to take the leave, if the state blocks their exercise of that right, their only recourse is to get a judge to reverse the potential violation, in advance. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion of the court for himself, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito; Justice Antonin Scalia concurred with Kennedy’s result but not his reasoning.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, on behalf of Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, took the rare step of reading her dissent aloud in court. She called the result “regrettable” and observed that the Kennedy opinion “pays scant attention to the overarching aim” of the law, which was “to make it feasible for women to work while sustaining family life.” Ginsburg said that the law was a reasonable effort by congress to ensure the equal protection guaranteed by the 14th amendment for public employees facing discrimination.

While the law remains in full force for employees of private employers, the court’s ruling significantly weakens the law’s protections for hundreds of thousands of public employees. With anti-worker rulings like this, it’s no wonder a mere 28 percent of likely voters like the job the Supreme Court is doing.

Welcome to Justiceline, ThinkProgress Justice’s morning round-up of the latest legal news and developments. Remember to follow us on Twitter at @TPJustice.

• James Bopp Jr., a Republican campaign finance lawyer who opposes nearly all limits to political spending, challenges New York City’s “pay-to-play” anti-corruption rules.
• Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) moves to accept the House Republican’s weakened STOCK Act insider trading bill, which lacks key ethics reforms.
• Six senate Democrats will reportedly introduce a new DISCLOSE Act proposal today, proposing transparency requirements for outside political group spending.
• The pro-Romney Restore Our Future super PAC returned an illegal $100,000 contribution from the family charitable foundation of title lending magnate Rod Aycox — and then received a $100,000 contribution from his personal account.
• The chief justice of the California state supreme court is taking on the legislature over massive cuts to the judiciary’s funding — 25 percent over the past four years.
• The U.S. Supreme Court mulls whether juveniles can be sentenced to life without parole.