Justice Department Lacks Evidence For Racial Bias In Zimmerman Trial

Justice Department Lacks Evidence For Racial Bias In Zimmerman TrialThe Justice Department was running into immediate hurdles Monday in its investigation of possible civil rights violations by George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin — namely, that after examining the case for more than a year, the evidence has not changed.

‘Racial bias’

Though the department announced after Zimmerman’s acquittal that it would consider a possible federal case, previously filed FBI documents show agents have not turned up any accounts that Zimmerman, before the February 2012 shooting, exhibited racial bias.

Attorney General Eric Holder, in his first post-verdict comments, confirmed Monday during a speech in Washington, D.C., that his department continues to investigate while signaling concern for the position of the Martin family and those — such as the NAACP — pressuring the DOJ. Holder even appeared to suggest the possibility of bias in this case, saying it’s important to address “underlying attitudes, mistaken beliefs and stereotypes that serve as the basis for these too common incidents.”


‘Number one challenge’

But Florida defense attorney Brian Tannebaum told FoxNews.com that the “number one challenge” for DOJ is the evidence, or lack thereof.

Still, the Justice Department agreed to requests from NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous and several lawmakers to keep investigating the defendant. The department is under heavy pressure from some groups to pursue the case further.

Was racial bias evident in George Zimmerman’s case? Feel free to share your thoughts on this issue!

Source: Fox News

Image: Guardian Express

Supreme Court Strikes Down Part Of Historic Voting Rights Law

Supreme Court Strikes Down Part Of Historic Voting Rights LawThe law passed at the height of America’s civil rights movement, when citizens in parts of the country were fighting each other and sometimes authorities over how skin color impacts a person’s place in a democracy. Now, it’s present and future are in doubt after the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision Tuesday that key parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are no longer valid.

‘Unfair barriers’

Tuesday’s ruling doesn’t change the fact it’s still illegal to discriminate against a person when it comes to voting. But it does change how some governments have been singled out. Unlike the rest of the nation, these municipalities, counties and states have had to get the federal government’s approval first before they made any changes to their voting laws and regulations.

Civil rights groups say the Voting Rights Act — specifically Section 5, the mechanism for the special treatment for some locales — has been an important tool in protecting minority voters from governments with a history of setting unfair barriers to the polls.


‘Equal voting process’

The law had been working in preventing “discriminatory voting changes,” Attorney General Eric Holder said. Specifically, he mentioned how it blocked Texas from adopting a new congressional redistricting map that would have “discriminated against Latino voters.” Holder also said the Voting Rights Act changed how South Carolina will implement a law requiring photo identification before being allowed to vote.

Obama characterized Tuesday’s ruling as a “setback,” even as he vowed his “administration will continue to do everything in its power to ensure a fair and equal voting process.”

This particular change in the Voting Rights Act — is it a good thing or a bad thing in general? Feel free to air out your comments below!

Source: Bill Mears and Greg Botelho | CNN

Image: Al-Rasub