The era of mass data collection is upon us and only recently have people begun to consider the value of their data. All of our clicks and likes have helped big tech companies build predictive models to tailor their product to the buying patterns of the consumer. Big data collection has its advantages in increasing profitability and efficiency, but many are concerned about the lack of transparency in these technologies (Dwyer). The dependency on algorithms to make and influence decisions has become a growing concern in law enforcement. The use of this technology is commonly referred to as data-driven decision making, which is also known as predictive policing. These technologies are thought to reduce the biases held in traditional policing by creating statistically sound evidence-based models. Although, many lawsuits have highlighted the fact that predictive technologies do more to reflect historical bias rather than to eradicate it. The clandestine measures behind the algorithms may be in conflict with the due process clause and the penumbra of privacy rights enumerated in the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. <br/> Predictive policing technology has come under fire for over policing historically black and latinx neighborhoods. GIS (Geographical Information Systems) is supposed to help officers identify where crime will likely happen over the next twelve hours. However, the LAPD’s own internal audit of their program concluded that the technology did not help officers solve crimes or reduce crime rate any better than traditional patrol methods (Puente). Similarly, other types of tools used to calculate recidivism risk for bond sentencing are disproportionately biased to calculate black people as having a higher risk to reoffend (Angwin). Lawsuits from civil liberties groups have been filed against the police departments that utilized these technologies. This paper will examine the constitutional pitfalls of predictive technology and propose ways that the system could work to ameliorate its practices.

This paper conducts an exploration of the election policy reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic within the United States. While living through and voting during the real-time events which took place during the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020, it soon became evident that there was not enough experience from earlier election emergencies to properly ensure against voter disenfranchisement. Given the scope of the global pandemic and the speed with which policymakers had to act, there was very little time to properly prepare. There was also great contention regarding the legitimacy of election methods proposed to alleviate in-person election concerns, such as mail-in voting. The political battle between those who believed COVID-19 to be a grave concern against those who did not consider COVID-19 to be a legitimate threat towards their livelihoods also affected policymaking decisions. Policymakers were forced into a corner, as they experienced criticism for not enough government action, as well as disapproval on the actual regulation that came to pass. This paper therefore aims to understand what factors led to the decisions which shaped the election policy which occurred as a reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic during the election year of 2020. This analysis is conducted by considering the following: prior election emergency policy; the development of reactive election policy in March, proactive policy established for the August and November elections; and a review of voter disenfranchisement which occurred due to COVID-19.

This project offers an argument that isolates several major forces that it contends pose a critical threat to the endurance of modern American democracy. It evaluates modern and classic political philosophy to identify the prerequisites for a stable democracy, identifying and defining voter education and participation as necessary contributors to civic engagement. It provides a socio-legal framework for evaluating four phenomena that have shifted in their impact on politics over the past 20 years: the roles of money and media in politics, as well as disenfranchisement by gerrymandering and by felon voting restrictions. It demonstrates how each has a new and worsening impact on voter education and/or participation, thus threatening the continued existence of modern American democracy.

This project offers an argument that isolates several major forces that it contends pose a critical threat to the endurance of modern American democracy. It evaluates modern and classic political philosophy to identify the prerequisites for a stable democracy, identifying and defining voter education and participation as necessary contributors to civic engagement. It provides a socio-legal framework for evaluating four phenomena that have shifted in their impact on politics over the past 20 years: the roles of money and media in politics, as well as disenfranchisement by gerrymandering and by felon voting restrictions. It demonstrates how each has a new and worsening impact on voter education and/or participation, thus threatening the continued existence of modern American democracy.

The United States Supreme Court decided Ramos v. Louisiana in 2020, requiring all states to convict criminal defendants by a unanimous jury. However, this case only applied to petitioners on direct, and not collateral, appeal. In this thesis, I argue that the Ramos precedent should apply to people on collateral appeal as well, exploring the implications of such a decision and the criteria that should be used to make the decision in the case before the court, Edwards v. Vannoy (2021). Ultimately, I find that because the criteria currently used to determine retroactivity of new criminal precedents does not provide a clear answer to the question posed in Edwards, the Court should give more weight to the defendant's freedoms pursuant to the presumption of innocence while considering the potential for any disastrous outcomes.