ACE

Category: ACE Research

  • North Carolina’s Voter ID Law: Unpacking the Debate Over SB 824

    North Carolina’s Voter ID Law: Unpacking the Debate Over SB 824

    Introduction

    In the United States, voter ID requirements vary widely by state law. Currently, thirty-eight states strictly require residents to present ID before they can cast a countable ballot. Voter ID laws fall into four types: strict photo, strict non-photo, non-strict photo, and non-strict non-photo. Strict photo ID laws require voters to present photo identification (e.g., state ID or driver’s license) for their ballot to be counted. Strict non-photo ID laws accept non-photo identification like utility bills. Voters without acceptable ID in strict-law states must cast a provisional ballot and take additional steps after election day for their vote to be counted. On the other hand, non-strict non-photo and non-strict photo laws allow voters without preferred identification to cast a regular, countable ballot. Regardless of state laws, first-time voters must always present ID under federal law.

    North Carolina’s SB 824

    In 2018, North Carolina amended its state constitution to adopt a strict photo ID law in a referendum vote that passed with a 55.49% majority. Around 3.7 million of North Carolina’s 7.1 million registered voters (around 52%) voted on the referendum, which was implemented via North Carolina Senate Bill 824. SB 824 requires all residents to show a form of identification with a photograph in order to cast a countable ballot at a polling place. Those without ID can cast a provisional ballot, which is counted only if they present ID to the county Board of Elections by the end of vote counting. SB 824 also initiated a statewide program to provide free photo ID cards to registered voters at all county Boards of Elections. 

    Contention and Court Battles

    SB 824 has been met with contention at all stages of the legislative process. North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper vetoed SB 824, calling the law “a solution in search of a problem”. However, the North Carolina House of Representatives overrode the veto soon after and enacted the law. In an initial legal challenge through the state court system (Holmes v. Moore), the North Carolina Supreme Court suspended the law after finding it unconstitutional because it was enacted with discriminatory intent. After a shift in the composition of North Carolina’s Supreme Court, the case was re-argued and the decision reversed in 2023. Following this decision, the voter ID law was enacted once again in concordance with the House of Representatives veto override.

    Most recently, in May of 2024, a separate court case (NAACP v. Hirsch) has begun trial. This case also challenges North Carolina’s voter ID law–but on a larger scale. While Holmes v. Moore was argued through the state trial courts, NAACP v. Hirsch is being argued through the federal court system, and challenges the constitutionality of SB 824 under the U.S. Constitution rather than the North Carolina State Constitution. This case has not yet been decided.

    Arguments Against

    Opponents of SB 824 argue that the strict photo-ID law unnecessarily restricts access to voting. In his veto announcement, Governor Cooper claimed that the law “puts up barriers to voting that will trap honest voters in confusion and discourage them with new rules”. Some civil rights organizers agree, arguing that the law effectively imposes a voting fee for voters who lack photo ID through the indirect costs (transportation, time away from work, etc.) associated with obtaining a new ID. They state that the added voting requirements will disproportionately burden Black voters, who are “more likely to be employed in a job that does not allow time off during the normal business hours when government offices that issue IDs are open”. North Carolina State Representative Marcia Morey voiced concerns about the bill impacting other marginalized groups, stating “This amendment could disenfranchise 300,000 voters, including people with disabilities, elderly citizens, college students and those who do not drive”.

    Opponents also argue the provisional ballot system disenfranchises voters. In 2022, witnesses testified that some votes went uncounted due to inadequate follow-up with voters who cast provisional ballots. Moreover, opponents highlight the lack of public awareness about the new rules, citing reports that suggest North Carolina residents’ unfamiliarity with the new laws led to valid ballots being incorrectly rejected. Citing low levels of in person voter fraud and North Carolina’s history of enacting voting laws with discriminatory intent, opponents argue that SB 824 is an unnecessary deterrent to political participation.

    Arguments in Favor

    Those in favor of SB 824 rebuff claims of racial discrimination surrounding the law, stating that there is insufficient evidence proving SB 824 disproportionately burdens voters of color. Proponents call SB 824  “common sense” for election security, and note that voter fraud is likely underreported and could be a bigger problem than what their opponents suggest.

    Supporters also hold that SB 824 is the will of the people, given that a majority of voters cast ballots in favor of the amendment in the 2018 referendum. They argue that infringing upon a referendum supported by a democratic majority is an affront to democratic values in their state. Furthermore, since a national poll shows that voter fraud is perceived as a major problem by nearly half of the American public, supporters claim that voter ID laws are necessary because they have the potential to increase the public’s trust in the election process. They hold that by increasing the perceived security of elections, SB 824 will encourage North Carolinians to show up at the polls and make their voices heard.

    Conclusion

    The debate over North Carolina’s SB 824 reflects the broader national conflict surrounding voter ID laws and their impact on election access and security. Proponents see these laws as essential for maintaining the integrity of elections, while opponents argue they create unnecessary barriers for marginalized communities. As the legal battle over SB 824 moves through federal courts, its outcome could set a significant precedent, shaping future voter ID laws across the country. 

  • Pros and Cons of New Hampshire’s SB 418: How the New Voter ID Law Affects First-Time Voters

    Pros and Cons of New Hampshire’s SB 418: How the New Voter ID Law Affects First-Time Voters

    What is SB 418? 

    On June 16, 2022, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed a new piece of voting legislation: Senate Bill 418. Before SB 418, first-time voters who could not provide documents proving their identity at a polling place could still cast a ballot by signing a Qualified Voter Affidavit under oath. SB 418 eliminated the Qualified Voter Affidavit, requiring first-time voters to fill out a provisional ballot if they are unable to submit proof of identity. Under SB 418, a voter’s provisional ballot will only be counted if they submit proper identification documents to the Secretary of State within seven days of the election date. If the required documents are not submitted on time or do not correctly verify the voter’s identity, the provisional ballot is not counted. 

    Arguments in favor of SB 418 

    Proponents of SB 418 argue that the bill marked a necessary step towards election integrity. They say the prior system invoked a degree of trust in the individuals who signed the Qualified Voter Affidavit and argue that SB 418 eliminates the potential for false testimonies of identity or residency. Supporters cite several instances of election fraud in New Hampshire since 2016 as the basis for their support of the bill. A spokesman for the state Attorney General emphasized that New Hampshire elections are sometimes determined by a small number of votes, so any instance of fraud can be detrimental to the validity of elections. 

    Supporters also argue that SB 418 strengthens collective trust in elections. They claim that the bill implements a system that is already widely supported, seeing as one poll predicts that 79% of Americans support photo ID requirements to vote. Additionally, given that several other states have already implemented similar strict voter ID policies, supporters claim that SB 418 is not a departure from popular norms across the country.

    Arguments against SB 418 

    Critics of SB 418 contend that the bill places an unnecessary burden on voters who may not have the financial means or accessibility to provide documentation of their identity. They highlight that obtaining an ID involves costs associated with document copies, postage, and having a permanent address. Thus, opponents argue that SB 418 suppresses voting access for individuals who may not have access to photo identification, such as the homeless or new citizens of the state. Further, opponents assert that New Hampshire had not experienced sufficient voter fraud to merit a change in voting laws.

    Critics also contend that SB 418 risks violating voter privacy. Under SB 418, provisional ballots must be verified by election officials once the voter has submitted the correct documents. Opponents argue that giving government officials access to an individual’s voting preferences is an unconstitutional violation of the right to privacy. Additionally, opponents argue that SB 418’s procedure for ineligible provisional ballots risks divulging private information to the general public. Under SB 418, once a ballot is determined to be ineligible due to failed identity confirmation, the ballot is then released as public knowledge. Critics of the bill warn that this violates the right to a secret ballot, pointing to a few cases where voters’ publicly released ballots could easily be traced back to them. 

    ConclusionWhile SB 418 is still in effect, it has been met with several legal challenges. Two previous lawsuits by voter advocacy groups that were dismissed on procedural grounds are now being appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Moreover, in April, a judge denied the state’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought forward by the Democratic National Committee. These cases represent the core topics surrounding SB 418, including election security, voter privacy, and equal voting access. Despite the legal challenges against SB 418, efforts to regulate elections continue to emerge in New Hampshire; the legislature has proposed a new bill requiring proof of citizenship prior to voting.

  • Pros and Cons of New York’s Regulation of Financial Institutions and Chatboxes

    Pros and Cons of New York’s Regulation of Financial Institutions and Chatboxes

    Chatbots, powered by artificial intelligence (AI), have become increasingly prevalent in the banking industry. The implementation of chatbots in banking increases customer satisfaction and loyalty through offering instant and round-the-clock support to handle a large volume of customer queries and address customer inquiries promptly. Around 37% of the U.S. population engaged with a bank’s chatbot in 2022, and this number is expected to increase in the future. Goldman Sachs launched AI technology called ChatGS AI to enhance their customer support procedures and boost efficiency within their customer service systems. This move is part of a trend where many institutions are turning to chatbots as a more cost-effective solution compared to human customer service.

    Background  

    The evolving technological sophistication of chatbots in banking sparks questions about cybersecurity policies, such as the New York Department of Financial Services Cybersecurity Regulation (Regulation 500). The NYDFS Cybersecurity Regulation establishes cybersecurity requirements on all Covered Entities (financial institutions and financial services companies). It includes requirements for developing and implementing an effective cybersecurity program, requiring Covered Entities to assess their cybersecurity risk, and developing a plan to proactively address risks.

    What are the Key Components for the NYDFS Cybersecurity Regulation (23 NYCRR 500)?

    The main goal of the regulation is to ensure comprehensive cybersecurity measures in financial institutions. This includes information security, access controls, business continuity planning, systems and network security, risk assessments, cybersecurity policies and procedures, third-party security, data retention policies, data security controls, detection of cybersecurity events, restoration of operations after an event, and third-party risk assessments. The regulation emphasizes the importance of aligning with industry best practices and ISO 27001 standards, while also requiring the use of qualified cybersecurity personnel, ongoing training and education, notification of cybersecurity events, and the implementation of multi-factor authentication.

    Benefit of Third Party Regulations under 23 NYCRR 500

    Many financial institutions use third party vendors to store customer data and provide AI technology, creating another gateway for attackers to infiltrate customers’ networks through backdoors. This means third-party risk protections are crucial. By enforcing minimum regulations on vendors, financial institutions aim to enhance the security and integrity of sensitive data. High-profile incidents like the Target 2013 hack and SolarWinds breach demonstrate the impact of such vulnerabilities.

    Moreover, third-party risk protections promote transparency and accountability in the vendor relationship. By clearly defining minimum security requirements and establishing a vendor risk assessment framework, financial institutions set expectations and hold vendors accountable for meeting those requirements. This fosters a culture of shared responsibility and ensures that vendors prioritize cybersecurity measures and continuously enhance their security posture.

    Furthermore, third-party risk protections support incident response preparedness. In the event of a cybersecurity incident, financial institutions need to restore normal operations promptly. By including third-party obligations in their incident response plans, organizations can outline the roles and responsibilities of vendors in responding to and recovering from cyber threats. This coordinated approach enhances incident response effectiveness and minimizes potential disruptions caused by third-party vulnerabilities.

    Challenges of Third Party Regulations under 23 NYCRR 500

    Third-party regulations can present certain burdens and challenges. Financial institutions face an increased compliance burden as they are responsible for ensuring their third-party vendors adhere to the stringent cybersecurity requirements. Financial institutions must allocate additional resources, time, and effort to effectively monitor and assess vendor compliance, requiring ongoing assessments and validations of their security practices and controls. Additionally, the regulations may impose limitations on vendor selection, potentially reducing the pool of available vendors and limiting competition and innovation in the market.

    Utilizing third-party vendors in the development of chatbot technology has resulted in enhanced customer service and cost savings for financial institutions. Chatbots offer increased operational efficiency and cost savings for financial institutions. By automating basic inquiries and transactions, chatbots handle routine tasks. Reports show that when compared to the use of human agent customer service models, chatbots deliver $8 billion per annum in cost savings, approximately $0.70 saved per customer interaction. Wells Fargo has utilized third-party vendors in the launch of Fargo, a new chatbot virtual assistant that uses Alphabet’s Google Cloud platform to process customer’s input and provide tailored responses. Additionally, the U.S. Bank has introduced its Smart Assistant, exemplifying a new, growing reliance on chatbots in banking. However, it also introduces complexities and costs related to implementing and managing third-party risk programs.These complexities involve hiring specialized personnel, investing in cybersecurity tools and technologies, and conducting regular  assessments. These expenses can add up and impact the overall operational costs of financial institutions.

    Recent Advancements

    Several advancements in chatbots in banking can help financial institutions comply with the regulations set by the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS). Here are some notable advancements:

    • Enhanced Security Measures: Implementing robust data encryption protocols, secure data storage, and adhering to industry-standard cybersecurity practices ensures compliance with NYDFS regulations and safeguards customer data.
    • Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) Improvements: Continual training of chatbot algorithms on real customer interactions and incorporating feedback loops enhances their understanding of customer queries, improving response accuracy and aligning with the NYDFS’s focus on reliable customer information.
    • Contextual Understanding and Personalization: Leveraging customer data and contextual information enables chatbots to provide personalized recommendations and tailored banking services, enhancing the customer experience and meeting the NYDFS’s emphasis on meeting customer needs.
    • Continuous Monitoring and Compliance Auditing: Regularly reviewing chatbot conversations and conducting compliance audits helps identify and rectify any compliance issues proactively, ensuring compliance with NYDFS regulations and accurate information provision.
    • Regular Updates and Compliance Training: Staying updated with NYDFS regulations, incorporating regulatory changes into chatbot processes, conducting compliance training, and maintaining up-to-date documentation demonstrates commitment to compliance and customer data protection.
  • Understanding the AI in Healthcare Debate

    Understanding the AI in Healthcare Debate

    Background

    What is Artificial Intelligence?

    Artificial intelligence, more commonly referred to as AI, encompasses many technologies that enable computers to simulate human intelligence and problem solving abilities. AI includes machine learning, which allows computers to imitate human learning, and deep learning, a subset of machine learning that simulates the decision making processes of the human brain. Together, these algorithms power most of the AI in our daily lives, such as Chat GPT, self-driving vehicles, GPS, and more. 

    Introduction

    Due to the rapid and successful development of AI technology, its use is growing across many sectors including healthcare. According to a recent Morgan Stanley report, 94 percent of surveyed healthcare companies use AI in some capacity. In addition, a MarketsandMarkets study valued the global AI healthcare market at $20.9 billion for 2024 and predicted the value to surpass $148 billion by 2029. The high projected value of AI can be attributed to the increasing use of AI across hospitals, medical research, and medical companies. Hospitals currently use AI to predict disease risk in patients, summarize symptoms for potential diagnoses, power chatbots, and streamline patient check-ins. 

    The increased use of AI in healthcare and other sectors has prompted policymakers to recommend global standards for AI implementation. UNESCO published the first global standards for AI ethics in November 2021, and the Biden-Harris Administration announced an executive order in October 2023 on safe AI use and development. Following these recommendations, the Department of Health and Human Services published a regulation titled HTI-1 Final Rule, which includes requirements, standards, and certifications for AI use in healthcare settings. The FDA also expanded its inspection of medical devices that incorporate AI in 2023, approving 692 AI devices. While the current applications of AI in the health industry seem promising, the debate over the extent of its use remains a contentious topic for patients and providers.

    Arguments in Favor of AI In Healthcare

    Those in favor of AI in healthcare cite its usefulness in diagnosing patients and streamlining patient interactions with the healthcare system. They point to evidence showing that AI is valuable for identifying patterns in complex health data to profile diseases. In a study evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of AI in primary care for over 100,000 patients, researchers found an overall 84.2 percent agreement rate between the physician and the AI diagnosis. 

    In addition, proponents argue that AI will reduce the work burden on physicians and administrators. According to a survey by the American Medical Association, two thirds of over 1,000 physicians surveyed identified advantages to using AI such as reductions in documentation time. Moreover, a study published in Health Informatics found that using AI to generate draft replies to patient messages reduced burnout and burden scores for physicians. Supporters claim that AI can improve the patient experience as well, reducing waiting times for appointments and assisting in appointment scheduling.

    Proponents also argue that using AI could significantly combat mounting medical and health insurance costs. According to a 2024 poll, around half of surveyed U.S. adults said they struggled to afford healthcare, and one in four said they put off necessary care due to the cost. Supporters hold that AI may be a solution, citing one study that found that AI’s efficiency in diagnosis and treatment lowered healthcare costs compared to traditional methods. Moreover, researchers estimate that the expansion of AI in healthcare could lead to savings of up to $360 billion in domestic healthcare spending. For example, AI could be used to save $150 billion annually by automating about 45 percent of administrative tasks and $200 billion in insurance payouts by detecting fraud. 

    Arguments Against AI in Healthcare

    Opponents caution against scaling up AI’s role in healthcare because of the risks associated with algorithmic bias and data privacy. Algorithmic bias, or discriminatory practices taken up by AI from unrepresentative data, is a well-known flaw that critics say is too risky to integrate into already-inequitable healthcare settings. For example, when trained with existing healthcare data such as medical records, AI algorithms tended to incorrectly evaluate health needs and disease risks in Black patients compared to White patients. One study argues that this bias in AI medical applications will worsen existing health inequities by underestimating care needs in populations of color. For example, the study found that an AI system designed to predict breast cancer risk may incorrectly assign Black patients as “low risk”. Since clinical trial data in the U.S. still severely underrepresents people of color, critics argue that algorithmic bias will remain a dangerous feature of healthcare AI systems in the future.

    Those against AI use in healthcare also cite concerns with data privacy and consumer trust. They highlight that as AI use expands, more corporations, clinics, and public bodies will have access to medical records. One review explained that recent partnerships between healthcare settings and private AI corporations has resulted in concerns about the control and use of patient data. Moreover, opponents argue that the general public is significantly less likely to trust private tech companies with their health data than physicians, which may lead to distrust of healthcare settings that partner with tech companies to integrate AI. Another issue critics emphasize is the risk of data breaches. Even when patient data is anonymized, new algorithms are capable of re-identifying patients. If data security is left to private AI companies that may not have experience protecting such large quantities of patient data against sophisticated attacks, opponents claim the risk of large-scale data leaks may increase. 

    Conclusion

    The rise of AI in healthcare has prompted debates on diverse topics ranging from healthcare costs to work burden to data privacy. Proponents highlight AI’s potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy, reduce administrative burdens on healthcare professionals, and lower costs. Conversely, opponents express concerns about algorithmic bias exacerbating health disparities and data breaches leaking patient information. As the debate continues, the future of AI in healthcare will hinge on addressing these diverse perspectives and ensuring that the technology is developed responsibly.

  • American Privacy Rights Act: Pros, Cons, and Impact on Consumer Data Protection

    American Privacy Rights Act: Pros, Cons, and Impact on Consumer Data Protection

    Introduction

    The American Privacy Rights Act (APRA) is a new bill introduced in Spring 2024 that seeks to implement a nationwide set of consumer privacy laws. Currently, no national framework exists. A previous bill with similar goals, the American Data Privacy Protection Act, failed to pass in 2022. 

    The APRA would, among other things:

    • Restrict the data that large organizations (such as corporations, nonprofits, and third-party data brokers) would be able to collect about consumers 
    • Give consumers the ability to view and control any data being collected
    • Create a “private right of action”, giving consumers (rather than only the government) the ability to sue organizations that violate the laws introduced by the act
    • Prohibit data-collecting organizations from discriminating against customers based on their privacy decisions (for instance, by providing slower service to someone who opts out of data sharing)
    • Restrict the use of “dark patterns”, or design methods used to manipulate consumer behavior, such as making the data sharing opt-out button very small

    Support for the APRA

    Supporters of the APRA argue that comprehensive privacy legislation is necessary, and that this act is well suited to fill that role. A study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that roughly 70% of Americans feel confused and concerned about the use of their data by private companies and the government. Another Pew study found that roughly 60% of Americans read privacy policies before agreeing to them, and one third of that group understands very little to none of the content. Additionally, many websites have nonexistent or difficult-to-access privacy policies. The APRA would address these issues by requiring organizations to make easy-to-read privacy policies readily available to users. Advocates of the bill emphasize its likelihood of passage, in contrast to previous failed attempts at nationwide privacy legislation, given that APRA has bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. Privacy advocates and technology industry leaders praise the bill for its balance of consumer and business interests. They hold that APRA increases protections while creating a uniform national standard that will be easier for companies to comply with. 

    Criticism of the APRA: Going Too Far

    Criticism of the APRA generally comes from two angles, one of which is that it encroaches upon private sector revenue and autonomy. Some argue that there are benefits to collecting consumer data, such as contributions to health and energy efficiency research. Moreover, critics highlight that companies rely on ad data for revenue on platforms that are otherwise free to consumers; restrictions on data sharing might make this business model less sustainable. Others criticize APRA’s use of the vague term “dark patterns”, which they argue can lead to regulatory overreach. Critics also claim that the APRA would be expensive to implement and maintain. Private organizations covered by the act would have to spend money on compliance, which could disproportionately impact smaller businesses. Finally, opponents object to the inclusion of the private right of action, arguing it will empower private prosecutors over government regulators who may be better able to balance the interests of consumers and businesses.

    Criticism of the APRA: Not Doing Enough

    The other group of critics argues that the APRA does not go far enough to protect consumer data, and may actually force the regression of protections in states with already robust privacy laws. Some states, such as California and Illinois, have passed extensive data privacy acts that include protections that the APRA does not. For instance, unlike the APRA, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) protects data about sexual orientation and immigration status. Under the APRA, CCPA’s protections would be overridden and replaced with a less stringent national baseline. The head of the agency that enforces the CCPA criticizes the APRA’s limitations on state laws, asserting that “Congress should set a floor, not a ceiling”. 

    Conclusion

    While most agree that a clearly defined national data privacy bill would benefit consumers and businesses alike, many disagree over whether the APRA is the right solution. Although bipartisan support makes the APRA’s passage a realistic possibility, any privacy legislation will have to face the challenge of balancing the interests of private enterprise with consumer protection.

  • Understanding PADFA: The Pros and Cons of the Federal Government’s Approach to American Data Privacy

    Understanding PADFA: The Pros and Cons of the Federal Government’s Approach to American Data Privacy

    A new law addressing the national security risks of the data brokerage industry took effect on June 23, 2024, following bipartisan approval in January. The bill, known as the Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act or PADFAA, seeks to limit the transfer of sensitive American data to firms owned or controlled by Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. 

    PADFAA is the first piece of federal legislation to take aim at the data brokerage ecosystem, an industry that buys, sells, and analyzes online data for third-party usage. Furthermore, the bill represents growing bipartisan efforts to address data privacy at large. While advocates celebrate the narrow and targeted nature of the bill to address specific challenges in the data brokerage industry, some claim that the bill either goes too far or doesn’t go far enough. 

    What is the data brokerage industry? 

    The data brokerage industry encompasses the wide network of buyers, sellers, and contractors who collect, license, and share data from public and private sources online. The data broker industry generates $200 billion in annual revenue in the United States alone. 

    Data brokers collect information from both public and private sources. Companies may sell the data they collect on their platforms to data brokers, including user details, purchase history, and cookie information. Alternatively, data brokers can scrape the internet for publicly available information found on public sites and social media platforms. 

    Data collected online is then analyzed and aggregated to create packages of information tied to certain groups, such as their purchase habits, interests, health history, ideology, and identity. Even if a data broker doesn’t specifically collect personal information such as names and phone numbers, holistic data can still be used to identify individual users. 

    The demand for packaged data is wide-reaching across sectors. Packaged data can be used for advertising, fraud detection, risk assessment, and populating people-search sites: websites where users can search for an individual’s personal details given only their name. Potential buyers include banks, credit agencies, insurance firms, internet service providers, loan companies, advertisers, and law enforcement agencies.  A Duke University study shows that data buyers can acquire access with varying levels of vetting, suggesting that nefarious actors can often buy access to data for dangerous purposes.

    Arguments in Favor of PADFAA

    Proponents of PADFAA praise the bill for its comprehensive approach to data privacy. Six months before PADFAA came into effect, President Biden passed an executive order to address similar concerns about adversarial countries acquiring sensitive American data. PADFAA not only enshrines the executive order’s provisions into law, but expands its scope from government-affiliated Americans to all Americans. Additionally, the bill applies to all data transactions, both big and small, which supporters argue will better protect the average American citizen. 

    Supporters also argue that PADFAA creates an even national standard for data privacy, replacing a patchwork web of state laws and more niche federal laws. Through its comprehensive definition of “sensitive data,” PADFAA also creates a legal precedent that can be used as the basis for future legislation in the area of data brokerage. Under the bill, sensitive data includes geolocation data, passport information, social security and driver’s license numbers, bank details, biometric and genetic information, private communication, personal identities such as age, gender, and race, and online activity. Proponents argue the breadth of this definition will make it difficult for data brokers to exploit loopholes in existing data privacy laws. 

    Arguments Against PADFAA

    Critics argue that the law’s focus on third-party data brokers, who collect and analyze data for sale, leaves much of the industry unregulated. PADFAA’s definition of a “data broker” does not include first-party data collectors, allowing apps, social media platforms, and healthcare services to sell American data directly to companies owned or controlled by Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran.

    Additionally, the law does not prohibit selling American data to the four listed countries if the seller does not reside in one of those countries. Data privacy advocates stress that under PADFAA, if a company licensed outside of Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran acquires American data, it is still permissible for that company to sell American data to any of the four countries. 

    Opponents also claim that PADFAA will overburden the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC has long specialized in consumer privacy and data protection. However, critics argue that the FTC does not have the capacity to enforce foreign policy. Mainly, the FTC lacks the security clearances necessary for obtaining critical intelligence information about adversarial attempts to acquire American data. Critics also argue that the FTC’s privacy division is underfunded and overstretched, ill-equipped for the task. 

    On the other hand, some argue that PADFAA is an unnecessary addition to an already-complex legal landscape concerning the data broker industry. Federal measures like the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and state laws such as those in Vermont and  California take steps to protect consumer data from harmful use, and critics of PADFAA argue that those existing measures provide adequate protection. 

    Conclusion

    PADFAA marks the first step in regulating the data broker industry and protecting against its harmful effects. However, the law does not fully encompass the scale of the issues raised by privacy advocates, such as discretionary data collection, predatory and dangerous uses of individual information, and the lack of transparency in the industry. Nonetheless, the bipartisan support for a policy measure of this kind makes the path for future legislation less opaque.

  • Should Election Day Become a Federal Holiday? Weighing the Benefits and Drawbacks

    Should Election Day Become a Federal Holiday? Weighing the Benefits and Drawbacks

    Election Day is always held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November during an election year. Congress codified this tradition in 1845 to account for the nation’s largely agrarian labor force who needed most other days of the week to tend to their crops, travel, or worship. 

    In modern times, many argue that a Tuesday Election Day poses significant inconvenience to working people, and should therefore be designated as a federal holiday.  If Election Day were declared a federal holiday, all federal government employees would gain a paid day off on Election Day. Recently, lawmakers have introduced bills to codify Election Day as a federal holiday. These bills have not gained traction in Congress, despite the fact that 65% of Americans favor making Election Day a federal holiday. Given that weekday workers may struggle to find time to vote on a Tuesday, some argue that a federal holiday would provide more benefits than risks. Conversely, others believe it would have little impact on voter turnout and might harm hourly workers.

    Arguments in Favor of Federal Voting Holiday

    Proponents of making Election Day a federal holiday argue the policy would promote higher voter turnout in elections by allowing more people to vote without sacrificing a day off work. In the 2020 election, one poll found that 13.1% of participants who were registered voters did not vote because they were busy or had a scheduling conflict. If Election Day was granted federal holiday status, all federal employees – numbering over two million Americans – would be able to vote without worrying about missing a day of work. Although the federal government cannot require private companies to observe holidays, around 75% of civilian workers receive paid holidays that often align with the federal schedule.

    Considering that the United States had considerably lower voting-age turnout in 2020 than many comparable countries with weekend or holiday election days, some argue that a federal Election Day holiday would help align the U.S. with the rest of the world. Additionally, proponents argue that creating a national holiday supports democratic ideals and serves as a reminder of the importance of elections. Creating a federal Election Day holiday, according to its supporters, celebrates democracy and instills civic values in American citizens. 

    Arguments Against Federal Voting Holiday

    Those against making Election Day a federal holiday argue that such a large focus on one day is misguided, since almost 70% of ballots in the 2020 presidential election were cast before Election Day. 

    Many argue that advocates should redirect their efforts to create early voting options in states like Alabama and Mississippi, where early voting is prohibited. Since early voting policies give working people the freedom to cast ballots on weekends or other convenient days, opponents say these policies would eliminate the need for a federal voting holiday. 

    Additionally, opponents emphasize that private employers are not required to recognize or give paid time off for federal holidays. Numerous employees, especially those who are part-time or blue-collar workers, would likely not be included in the paid time off associated with federal holidays. Discrepancies between federal and private holiday policies might make it especially difficult for working parents who might have to find childcare if their kids had the day off school. Finally, opponents argue that making Election Day a federal holiday would be costly, with one analyst estimating that the added day of compensation would cost $818 million every other year. 

    Conclusion

    The debate over making Election Day a federal holiday reflects broader concerns about voting accessibility and voter turnout in the U.S.. Proponents argue that a federal holiday would encourage more participation in the democratic process and align the U.S. with other countries. Opponents counter that a holiday may not significantly increase turnout and could even create challenges for some workers. As discussions continue, the decision to designate Election Day as a federal holiday will hinge on whether its perceived benefits outweigh its potential drawbacks in promoting a more inclusive democracy.

  • Freedom to Vote Act: Pros, Cons, and Impact on U.S. Elections

    Freedom to Vote Act: Pros, Cons, and Impact on U.S. Elections

    Background

    The Freedom to Vote Act (FTVA) is a bill under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives that would expand protections for voting rights in the United States. The bill was originally introduced in 2019 during the 116th U.S. Congress as the For the People Act (FTPA). After being blocked in the Senate, the FTPA underwent revisions and became the FTVA. Despite these changes, the bill still failed to pass due to the use of a filibuster. Its current iteration remains stuck in committee today.

    The FTVA includes an expansive set of provisions that, were the bill to pass, would impact many different components of voter law.

    • Expanding ballot access: The bill includes a set of policies that aim to expand ballot access across the United States. These policies would require all 50 states to offer a minimum of two weeks for early voting, establish a standardized vote-by-mail system for all eligible voters, and provide more options for identity confirmation in states with voter ID requirements.
    • Expanding voter registration: The bill seeks to expand voter registration options by mandating that all 50 states offer online, automatic, and same-day voter registration. It also introduces a standardized review system for purging voter rolls to ensure eligible voters are not mistakenly removed during post-election voter roll cleanups.
    • Addressing election security: The FTVA focuses on enhancing election security by requiring voter-verified paper ballots and creating standard procedures for post-election audits. It would make threatening, intimidating, or coercing election workers a federal crime, and would also safeguard against interference with voters. The bill would create federal grants for the recruitment and training of non-partisan election officials.
    • Reforming campaign finance: The FTVA targets campaign finance reform, diminishing the power of super PACs and 501(c)(4) organizations and strengthening the power of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It aims to eliminate dark money, or funds spent to influence elections that cannot be traced due to the anonymity of a donor, by incorporating provisions from the DISCLOSE Act to increase donor transparency. Additionally, the FTVA seeks to enhance FEC enforcement by requiring a majority vote to dismiss campaign fraud cases early and by extending the statute of limitations for campaign finance crimes from five to 10 years.
    • Addressing redistricting: The FTVA offers several policy directives to address redistricting, including a federal prohibition on “mid-decade” redistricting, or the practice of redrawing pre-established district lines using the same census information.  It also aims to ban partisan gerrymandering by defining gerrymandering through statistical analysis and authorizing legal challenges against it. Under the FTVA, states would be required to publish district map proposals, and the data used to create them, for public transparency. 

    Arguments in Favor of the FTVA

    Supporters of the bill emphasize its role in safeguarding against restrictive voting access laws. 

    They highlight the hundreds of state-level bills that aim to impose restrictions on voting access and argue that the FTVA offers a national remedy. Given that many argue strict ID requirements, inconvenient registration options, and limited voting methods disproportionately impact communities of color and disabled people, supporters see the FTVA as crucial for increasing equal access to voting in the U.S..

    Proponents also argue that the FTVA could increase trust in the American election system by providing a guardrail against administrative malpractice by state election officials. They hold that election certification has become increasingly political, with multiple election boards attempting to delay or refuse the certification of election results since the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Since the FTVA contains provisions that limit election officials’ ability to interfere with local election administrators, supporters claim that the bill will restore trust in the legitimacy of election results. 

    Finally, proponents of the FTVA reject the argument that the bill upsets the power balance between state and federal authority. They point to the Election Clause of the Constitution which gives Congress authority over states’ voting procedures for members of the House and Senate. They argue that this clause allows the FTVA standards to override pre-existing state election standards in the case of federal congressional elections.

    Arguments Against the FTVA

    Arguments against the bill largely concern the efficacy of its provisions. Both a study by American University in 2008 and a study from the University of Wisconsin found that early voting, a provision of the FTVA, decreased voter turnout. Critics argue that these studies suggest the early voting provisions in the FTVA may hinder rather than encourage voter turnout, making them obsolete. In addition, evidence from Princeton University indicates that making Election Day a federal holiday – another provision of the FTVA – would privilege middle- and upper-class voters. Opponents use this to argue that the FTVA might not promote equal access to voting to the extent its supporters claim. 

    Opponents also argue that the FTVA’s provisions encroach on states’ rights, because they would transfer consolidated power over election procedures to the federal government. Given that the states currently have the right to pass their own election laws, critics claim states might lose freedom to control their own election standards if the FTVA were to pass. 

    Conclusion

    After its reintroduction by Senator Amy Klobuchar in July 2023, the current iteration of the FTVA was referred to committee, where it remains today. Given that support and opposition for the bill run largely along partisan lines, the likelihood of the FTVA being passed likely depends on the composition of future congressional sessions.

  • Automatic Voter Registration: A Closer Look at the Ongoing Debate

    Automatic Voter Registration: A Closer Look at the Ongoing Debate


    In all states except North Dakota, eligible voters must register to vote before casting a ballot in any election. Each state’s voter registration requirements vary, but most states retain voters’ name, date of birth, address, and party affiliation. While the 1993 Voter Registration Act (also known as the “Motor Voter” law) allowed eligible voters to fill out a voter registration form at the same time they sought or renewed their driver’s license, it was not until 2015 that some states adopted fully automatic voter registration. Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) is a process whereby eligible voters’ registration information is automatically submitted or updated when they interact with government agencies like the DMV or Department of Health. Essentially, AVR makes voter registration an opt-out, rather than an opt-in, process. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia currently use some form of AVR. 

    How AVR Works

    There are two main types of Automatic Voter Registration (AVR): front-end opt-out and back-end opt-out.

    • Front-end opt-out: When eligible voters interact with a government agency, they can choose whether to register by filling out a form or checking a box. Some states confirm registration afterward with a notification.
    • Back-end opt-out: Government agencies automatically register voters unless they decline. After the interaction, voters receive a notification giving them a chance to opt out within a certain timeframe.

    Sixteen states and D.C. use front-end opt-out, while eight states use back-end opt-out.

    Arguments in Favor of AVR

    Supporters argue that AVR increases access to elections and ease of voting. They claim non-automatic voter registration procedures are inefficient and contribute to low voter turnout due to the need for potential voters to take an extra step before they vote. Moreover, proponents argue that by automatically updating voter addresses during interactions with government agencies, AVR decreases the likelihood that voters show up to an incorrect polling place due to outdated registration information. Supporters claim that up-to-date voter registration information not only reduces confusion on election day, but also prevents jurisdictions from misallocating resources across polling places based on outdated records. Those who endorse AVR also claim it significantly reduces costs associated with paper forms, postage, provisional ballots, and same-day registration. 

    Moreover, proponents of AVR assert that it increases the number of registered voters compared to non-automatic registration. A case study conducted by the Center for American Progress found AVR to be an effective means of engaging voters. According to the study, Oregon’s AVR program registered 116,000 people who were otherwise unlikely to have registered. Moreover, it found that Oregon’s electorate became more representative of the state’s population after AVR was put into place. Another case study from Georgia found that AVR registered and updated voter information at a higher rate than other registration sources, increasing the state’s registered voter population from 78% in 2016 to 98% in 2020. 

    Arguments Against AVR

    Critics of AVR argue that as more agencies coordinate to access and update voter information, the risk of errors and security breaches increases. They cite one 2018 instance when the California DMV was overwhelmed by an influx of potential voters, resulting in errors such as duplicate registrations and incorrect information being input into voter records. Opponents argue inaccuracies like those in California may cause more work for election officials because duplicate registrations must be corrected individually. Critics also claim an electronic system is vulnerable to major security risks, citing an incident when California’s new DMV voter registration system appeared to have been targeted by foreign hackers. In light of the risk of data breaches, some opponents of AVR argue that the automatic collection of voter information puts citizens who intentionally do not register, such as domestic violence survivors, at risk. 

    Opponents also question the extent of AVR’s impact on voter registration rates and voting behavior. They argue that the increased voter registration numbers cited by supporters of AVR fail to account for voters who would have updated their registration without AVR. Additionally, they claim that even if AVR increases the amount of registered voters, newly registered voters who typically do not vote are still unlikely to vote. 

    Conclusion

    AVR remains a key issue nationwide, with several states adopting or adjusting AVR policies. In 2023 Minnesota, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania became the newest additions to the list of states that use AVR in some form. As the conversation over AVR’s pros and cons continues, costs, data security, and voter turnout are likely to remain central topics of debate.

  • Showdown in New York: Tim Walz and JD Vance Face Off in a High-Stakes Vice Presidential Debate

    Showdown in New York: Tim Walz and JD Vance Face Off in a High-Stakes Vice Presidential Debate

    Tuesday, October 1st marked the first and only Vice Presidental debate between Democratic candidate Governor Tim Walz and Republican candidate Senator JD Vance. Hosted by CBS, the debate took place a the CBS Broadcast Center in New York City. Like the Presidential debate, this debate had no audience. Additionally, candidates were not allowed to bring pre-written notes or props on stage. Candidates were granted two minutes to answer a question, two minutes to respond, and one minute for rebuttals. Finally, unlike the Presidential debate, the candidates’ microphones will not be muted during their opponent’s speaking time. 

    With the rules set and the candidates behind their podiums, the debate began.

    Middle East

    Hosts Nora O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan directed the first question to Governor Walz. On the topic of the Middle East, Brennan asked if Walz would support a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran. Walz responded by addressing the October 7th terrorist attacks of Hamas on Isreal, stating that it is fundamental that Israel has the right to defend itself and seek the safe return of its hostages, while also “ending the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” He also called the expansion of Isreal and its proxies a fundamental necessity for the United States before addressing the importance of “steady leadership” and attacking Donald Trump’s leadership skills and his discussion of “crowd sizes” during the Presidential debate. 

    Senator Vance was given the same question. He first introduced himself as a “middle-class” citizen, providing background on himself and his history. He claimed that Trump established “effective deterrents” that made people afraid of stepping out of line with “peace through strength.” When addressing whether or not he would support a preemptive strike, he responded that the decision is up to Israel and that the United States should support its allies. Walz criticized Trump’s “fickle leadership” when handling Iran, addressing Trump’s withdrawal from a deal with Iran that would have temporarily paused its nuclear program. Vance responded that Hamas attacked Israel during the Biden-Harris administration’s time in office, therefore their administration has caused more conflict than stability.

    Climate Change

    O’Donnell questioned Vance on the Trump administration’s responsibility to reduce climate change. Vance answered by stating that he and Trump support “clean air and clean water” before criticizing Harris’s climate policies and arguing that her policies do not actually reduce the amount of carbon emission being released into the air. He argued that instead, the answer is to invest in American-made businesses and the American people. Walz highlighted Trump’s past statements on climate change, noting how the former president called it a “hoax.” He then moved to praise the Biden-Harris administration for its investments in EV technology, which have created 200,000 jobs in the country with the Inflation Reduction Act. 

    Immigration 

    Vance was questioned on the specifics of the Trump administration’s plans to mass deport immigrants at the border using the military. He attacked Harris’s stance on the immigration issue, claiming that under Biden’s Immigration Policies, she has suspended deportations, decriminalized illegal aliens, and increased the asylum fraud which has “opened the floodgates” and allowed fentanyl to enter the country. Vance wants to start deportations with illegal aliens who have committed a crime and then protect US workers by preventing illegal aliens from getting jobs. When addressing the issue of separating parents from their children, he called the “real family separation policy” Harris’s “wide open border policy.” Walz cited that, in the past year, the nation saw the largest decrease in opioid deaths in history. He then highlighted Harris’s background as a prosecutor and her work prosecuting transnational gangs from “sex trafficking and drug interventions. He then referenced a bi-partisan border patrol bill that failed in the Senate. Walz attributes this failure to Trump, arguing that Trump told Republican Senators not to vote for the bill for his own political gain. When questioned again on whether or not Vance would separate parents from their children, he refused to answer the question, reiterating that Harris’s policies allow children to be used as “drug mules.” Walz criticized Vance’s narration of immigrants, arguing that it has only led to the vilification of legal immigrants, citing the threats Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio have received since Trump and Vance brought attention to the false rumor that the Haitian immigrants were eating pets.

    Vance was then questioned on whether the presidential administration has the power to accomplish Trump’s immigration plans or whether that power lies in Congress with the power of the purse, Vance responded that the President just needs to “empower border patrol.” Vance criticized the “blaming migrants for everything” rhetoric, arguing that it does not deal with the actual immigration problem.

    Economy

    When addressing their administration’s economic plans, Walz was questioned on his plan to pay for the 1.2 trillion dollar deficit that would result from the tax credits laid out in the Harris economic plan. He reiterated Harris and his own commitment to the middle class and stated that they would increase taxes on the wealthy, asking them to “pay their fair share.” Trump’s economic plan was stated to increase the nation’s deficit by 5.8 trillion dollars. Vance was similarly questioned on his plans to pay for that deficit. He states that Trump’s tax cuts gave more take-home pay to middle-class families and created an economic boom in 2017. In response, Walz claimed that Trump has not paid “any federal taxes in the past 15 years.” Therefore, Trump does not care about lowering taxes for middle-class workers such as truck drivers. Walz agreed with Vance that jobs should be brought back to the United States but argued that the difference between Harris and Trump is that Harris created 200,000 more jobs.

    Past Statements

    The hosts addressed Vance’s past remarks about his current running mate. He has previously called Trump “unfit for the presidency” and “America’s Hitler,” and more recently in 2020 stated that “Trump failed to deliver his economic populism.” Vance was then questioned on whether he would give Trump the “advice he needs to hear” rather than the “advice he wants to hear.” He clearly backtracked his previous statements, saying that he was “clearly wrong about the president” by believing the media. He then states that his more recent criticisms were about Trump’s first term in office. He then pivoted to attacking Congress’s ability to pass laws, claiming that instead of passing laws, they were “too busy impeaching Trump.” 

    Reproductive Rights

    Walz was asked to address Trump’s claims from the Presidential debate in which Trump claimed that Walz supports abortion up to the 9th month. Walz denied supporting abortion to the 9th month before moving to tell the stories of women who wanted to seek an abortion in cases of saving the mother’s life and in rape and incest. He then attacked Project 2025, claiming that the policy plan would create a pregnancy registry and that in Minnesota “we trust women and we trust doctors.” Vance admits that the people do not necessarily trust Republicans on this issue but promise to be pro-family. He reiterated Trump’s belief to leave abortion up to the states. Vance was later questioned on his previous support for a 15-week national abortion ban. He denied supporting a national ban and reiterated his commitment to “pro-family policies.”

    Gun Violence

    Vance was asked if he believed that parents of school shooters should be convicted for their child’s actions. In response, Vance stated that it depends on the circumstance, but he trusts local law enforcement to make those distinctions. He then blamed Harris for opening the southern border, which he claimed led to “a massive influx of firearms” into the country. He wants to increase security and police officers in schools. Walz states that he is a hunter and owns a gun but he believes in common sense gun laws such as red flag laws. He emphasized his commitment to the Second Amendment and stated that he, nor Harris, is coming for anyone’s gun. Walz also pushed back on the claim that gun violence is a mental health issue, stating that sometimes “it’s just the guns.”

    Housing Crisis

    Harris’ economic plan gives a $25,000 down payment assistance to first-time home buyers, a $10,000 tax credit, and promises to build 3 million new homes. Walz was asked where the administration plans to build these new homes and if the tax credit would only increase the price of homes. Walz responded by arguing that the problem with housing is that it is viewed as a commodity to be bought and sold around. He states that this program is being implemented in Minnesota, and thus has been shown to create stable housing which leads to stable jobs. Vance’s campaign’s position is to seize federal land to build homes, create tax breaks, and cut back on immigration. He was questioned about where he would build these new homes and if the plans would create any immediate relief for homeowners. In response, Vance blamed Harris’s policies for causing an increase in immigration and therefore housing. He then claimed that the Vice President should use her current position to act on these policies instead of campaigning on them. Vance wants to open up American energy to get “immediate pricing relief” in housing. Vance was then asked to explain what evidence showed the immigrants were raising housing prices. To support his claim, Vance cited a Federal Reserve study that he claims shows a relationship between illegal immigration and increased housing prices. 

    Healthcare

    Vance was asked to clarify Trump’s statements in the Presidential debate regarding his healthcare plan in which Trump stated that he had “concepts of a plan” and Vance’s own statements on how he would protect Americans with pre-existing conditions. Vance defended Trump’s statement by asserting that if Trump were to list out a 900-page bill on a debate stage it would only bore the audience. Vance then argues that during Trump’s previous time in office, the price of prescription drugs did not increase as much as it did under the Biden administration. He also claimed that Trump supports price transparency and reassurance regulations. Walz argued that Trump has never tried to save or improve Obamacare. He cites that in Trump’s early days in office, he tried to sign an executive order to repeal Obamacare and signed on to a lawsuit against Obamacare that lost to the Supreme Court. Walz argued that eliminating Obamacare would end coverage for pre-existing conditions and that Obamacare increases the number of people who can afford healthcare at an older age or when they develop health conditions.

    Childcare

    Walz was questioned on how long he believes employers should be required to pay workers while home taking care of their newborn. Walz argued that paid leave increases the health of workers and the benefits of employers because it allows the child to get “off to a better start, the family works better” which increases employee consistency. He believes that a paid federal family leave will “enhance our workforce and families.” Vance was asked the same question. He used his wife as an example to speak on the pressures and difficulties women experience taking maternity leave and deciding when to return to work. He stated that he believed there should be a choice model to allow women to decide when to return to work after taking maternity leave. He admitted that they would have to increase spending and funding to encourage more people to provide childcare services. Walz was then asked if he believed that Congress would agree to the child tax credits laid out in Harris’s economic plan. Walz insisted that potentially hesitant members of Congress would support this tax credit because it would encourage the workforce.

    Democracy 

    On the topic of maintaining democracy and a free and fair election, Vance was asked if he would seek to challenge this year’s election results, even if every governor certifies the election results. Vance refused to answer the question, instead focusing on debating the “election issues” in 2020. He expresses that the actual threat to democracy is censorship, arguing that “big technologies are silencing citizens” and “Kamala Harris is censoring people who engage in misinformation.” Walz highlighted the events of January 6th at the nation’s capital and Minnisota’s capital, telling a story of a group who gathered on state capital grounds to march toward the state capital with the threat of casualties that caused his son to be rushed out the Capitol by state police. He then addresses Trump’s threats to imprison his political opponents He proclaimed that in this election “we need to shake hands and the winner needs to be the winner.” During this topic, Walz directly questioned Vance on whether Trump lost the 2020 election. Vance responded that “we are focused on the future,” refusing to admit Trump’s defeat. 

    Closing Statements

    Governor Walz had the first closing statements in which he first shouted out some of Harris’s mt most popular endorsements like Dick Cheney and Taylor Swift. He stressed Donald Trump’s threat to democracy and the fear he instills. Walz then contrasted that imagery with Kamala Harris’s “politics of joy,” where everyone gets an opportunity to be heard and a “chance to thrive.”  

    Senator Vance criticized Kamala Harris’s policies, arguing that she has made it harder to buy food, turn on the heat, and buy a house. He then goes on to praise the nation and the people in the nation, citing the current administration as the problem. Lastly, he called for a change to a “president who has already done this once before.”