Florida A&M University - Florida State University College of Engineering
Florida State University College of LawNot a member yet
4903 research outputs found
Sort by
Limiting Florida\u27s Constitution Revision Commission
Get PDFEvery twenty years, Florida\u27s Constitution mandates the establishment of the Constitution Revision Commission, a thirty-seven-member body that has been the author of fifteen successful changes to Florida\u27s Constitution since 1998. The 2018 Constitution Revision Commission, or CRC, proposed eight amendments, covering seventeen unique policy areas, seven of which were ultimately approved of by Florida voters. Despite being an efficient way to amend Florida\u27s Constitution, the CRC has very few checks on its considerable power. Therefore, instead of waiting until the next CRC in 2038 to consider its purpose and structure, this paper outlines the CRC, discusses its utility, and suggests adding several important limitations to its powers in order to make the CRC a more credible and useful institution
Weaponizing the Ballot
Get PDFState legislatures are considering passing laws to prevent presidential candidates from appearing on the ballot if they fail to disclose their tax returns. These proposals exceed the states\u27 power under the Elections Clause and the Presidential Electors Clause. States have no power to add qualifications to presidential or congressional candidates. But states do have constitutional authority to regulate the manner of holding elections and to direct the manner of appointing presidential electors. Manner regulations that relate to the ballot are those that affect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself or that require a preliminary showing of substantial support. In other words, they are procedural rules to help voters choose their preferred candidate. Tax disclosure requirements, like term limits or other substantive ballot access conditions, are not procedural election rules, which means they fall outside the scope of the states\u27 constitutional authority to administer federal elections and are thus unconstitutional
FSU Law Focus - 12/18/2020
Get PDFFrom the Dean: 2020 Year in Reviewhttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1008/thumbnail.jp
FSU Law Focus - 11/23/2020
Get PDFFrom the Dean: 2020 Alumni Awards; Professor Williams Hosts Feminist Judgments Workshop; Alum Profile: JoLinda L. Herring (’96); Student Profile: 3L Bailey Cunninghamhttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1052/thumbnail.jp
FSU Law Focus - 09/11/2020
Get PDFProfessor Talbot “Sandy” D’Alemberte will be posthumously awarded the James D. Westcott Distinguished Service Medal; Dean O’Connor Named Registrant Advocate for Florida Bar Examinees; Alum Profile: Maikel N. Eskander (’11); Student Profile: 3L Joseph Sobeckihttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1105/thumbnail.jp
More Is Different: Tort Liability of Compromised Systems in Internet Denial of Service Attacks
Get PDFStretching Human Laws to Apply to Machines: The Dangers of a Colorblind Computer
Get PDFAutomated decision-making has become widespread in recent years, largely due to advances in machine learning. As a result of this trend, machine learning systems are increasingly used to make decisions in high-stakes domains, such as employment or university admissions. The weightiness of these decisions has prompted the realization that, like humans, machines must also comply with the law. But human decision- making processes are quite different from automated decisionmaking processes, which creates a mismatch between laws and the decision makers to which they are intended to apply. In turn, this mismatch can lead to counterproductive outcomes. We take antidiscrimination laws in employment as a case study, with a particular focus on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A common strategy for mitigating bias in employment decisions is to blind human decision makers to the sensitive attributes of the applicants, such as race. The same strategy can also be used in an automated decision-making context by blinding the machine learning system to the race of the applicants (strategy 1). This strategy seems to comply with Title VII, but it does not necessarily mitigate bias because machine learning systems are adroit at using proxies for race if available. An alternative strategy is to not blind the system to race (strategy 2), thereby allowing it to use this information to mitigate bias. However, although preferable from a machine learning perspective, this strategy appears to violate Title VII. We contend that this conflict between strategies 1 and 2 highlights a broader legal and policy challenge, namely, that laws designed to regulate human behavior may not be appropriate when stretched to apply to machines. Indeed, they may even be detrimental to the very people that they were designed to protect. Although scholars have explored legal arguments in an attempt to press strategy 2 into compliance with Title VII, we believe there lies a middle ground between strategies 1 and 2 that involves partial blinding-that is, blinding the system to race only during deployment and not during training (strategy 3). We present strategy 3 as a Goldilocks solution for discrimination in employment decisions (as well as other domains), because it allows for the mitigation of bias while still complying with Title VII. Ultimately, any solution to the general problem of stretching human laws to apply to machines must be sociotechnical in nature, drawing on work in both machine learning and the law. This is borne out in strategy 3, which involves innovative work in machine learning (viz. the development of disparate learning processes) and creative legal analysis (viz. analogizing strategy 3 to legally accepted auditing procedures)
FSU Law Focus - 10/16/2020
Get PDFFrom the Dean: Judge Mary Steven Scriven (\u2787) for virtual Jurist in Residence; FSU Law Review D’Alemberte Tribute Issue; Benavides Accepts National Professionalism Award; Alum Profile: John D. Neumann (’01); Student Profile: 3L Tanner Kelseyhttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1013/thumbnail.jp
FSU Law Focus - 10/02/2020
Get PDFFrom the Dean: Virtual alumni networking receptions; FSU Law Hosts “Remembering Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg” Virtual Event; Alum Profile: Lazaro P. Fields (’17); Student Profile: 3L Troy Longman, IIhttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1123/thumbnail.jp