University of Idaho

University of Idaho College of Law
Not a member yet
    17616 research outputs found

    Nelson v. Franklin Group (Case Summary)

    Get PDF

    Hairston v. State: Capital Punishment for Youthful Offenders (Practitioner Comment)

    Get PDF

    Idaho’s Coronavirus Limited Immunity Act (Issue Summary)

    Get PDF

    Landscape Conservation, Wildlife Management, and the Federal Public Lands: A Primer

    Get PDF

    The Balk Stops Here: Standards for the Justiciability of Gerrymandering in the Coming Age of Artificial Intelligence

    Get PDF
    At the time of this writing, the Supreme Court seems to have abandoned establishing an objective test for drawing nonpartisan districts altogether—leaving this task largely to state-level courts and legislatures in the aftermath of Rucho v. Common Cause.1 Many have seen this deferment to the states as the latest in a series of unsatisfactory ‘balks,’ and have openly wondered what redistricting laws will look like in the next several years as a result of the Court’s general refusal to intervene in this area outside of Voting Rights Act2 litigation. This paper will argue that there is at least one foreseeable outcome— that (in the absence of mathematically rigorous legal standards for gerrymandering) state-level redistricting processes will be left vulnerable to abuse through the use of sophisticated artificial intelligence platforms. To make this argument, the paper will first provide a brief and beginner-friendly primer on the basics of AI and machine learning. Then it will detail how AI is uniquely suited to perpetrate gerrymanders in ways that computer systems would not have been able to during the 2010 redistricting cycle. Finally, it will conclude with a policy recommendation—that the only reliable way to forestall gerrymandering in the age of AI is to employ a form of fully-automatic redistricting, or a novel semi-automatic redistricting process I will call the “Rawlsian Default.

    Episode 4: Institutional Problems with the U.S. Supreme Court with Prof Eric Segall (Georgia State)

    No full text
    In this episode we discuss institutional problems with the U.S. Supreme Court with Prof. Eric Segall (Georgia State.

    State v. Hutton Respondent\u27s Brief Dckt. 47847

    No full text
    https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs/9310/thumbnail.jp

    Valentine v. Valentine Appellant\u27s Reply Brief 2 Dckt. 48254

    No full text
    https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs/9425/thumbnail.jp

    Christiansen v. Potlatch #1 Financial Credit Union Respondent\u27s Brief 2 Dckt. 48256

    No full text
    https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs/9428/thumbnail.jp

    Robirds v. Robirds Appellant\u27s Reply Brief Dckt. 48414

    No full text
    https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs/9442/thumbnail.jp

    17,275

    full texts

    17,616

    metadata records
    Updated in last 30 days.
    University of Idaho College of Law
    Access Repository Dashboard
    Do you manage Open Research Online? Become a CORE Member to access insider analytics, issue reports and manage access to outputs from your repository in the CORE Repository Dashboard! 👇