People usually have views on the top of the ticket, which this year ought to be seen as a referendum on Donald Trump; vote GOP if you like how he’s conducting his Presidency, vote straight Democratic if you do not.
It’s harder to get information about the electoral undercard. Here are some ballot suggestions, with voting line numbers, and links to posts explaining my reasons:
As of this morning, the Miami-Dade Elections Dept. online ballot checker showed no sign that the Elections Dept. had received my mail ballot — even though I posted it at a local Post Office eight days ago.
So, trepidatiously, I went off to vote. I imagined officious claims that I was trying to vote twice, ending in a provisional ballot. In the event, however, it was all a a happy anti-climax. The official called over someone to explain what to do, which involved punching some buttons, and voilà! I am issued a nice new giant ballot.
Apparently even if they had my by-mail ballot, they would allow me to vote in person as the system is programmed to erase the earlier ballot in that case. Which sort of makes me wonder how that works. As I understand it, the state releases the early vote totals pretty quickly after polls close. That leaves just two possibilities: either (1) they have my name attached to my ballot up until the polls close, and can pull it before they count it; or (2) they have my name attached to my vote even after an initial count, and can deduct my vote from the total before releasing it. Neither possibility suggests that ballot anonymity is preserved very well, does it? Although in case (1) I guess it could be anonymous once it’s counted.
If you haven’t done so already, please vote. These are the most consequential midterm elections of your life to date.
I voted by mail this year, thinking that with such a long ballot the lines might be very long. I posted my ballot at the Post Office on Monday, well before the 1pm pickup scheduled for weekdays. As of this writing, the Miami-Dade elections officials have not received my ballot, at least according to the online lookup tool.
Does it really take five days to deliver a letter from the post office in Coral Gables to downtown Miami?
And, more worryingly, if by Tuesday afternoon, they still won’t admit to having my ballot, how do I cast a ballot that is likely to count? All I’ve been able to find so far is this, from the Florida division of elections:
If the voter decides to go to the polls to vote instead, the voter should bring the vote-by-mail ballot (whether it has been marked or not). Even if the voter comes to the polls without the vote-by-mail ballot, the voter will still be able to vote a regular ballot if the supervisor of elections’ office is able to confirm that it has not received the voter’s vote-by-mail ballot. However, if it is confirmed that the voter have already voted a vote-by-mail ballot, the voter cannot vote again at the polls. If the voter believes or insists that the supervisor of elections’ office is wrong about receiving the vote-by-mail ballot or if the supervisor of elections’ office cannot confirm that the voter has already voted an vote-by-mail ballot, the voter is allowed to vote a provisional ballot.
I guess I better block out some time for Tuesday afternoon.
My guest post Big Data: Destroyer of Informed Consent for this Friday’s Yale Workshop on “The Law and Policy of AI, Robotics & Telemedicine” is now online at the Balkanization blog.
Consent, that is ‘notice and choice,’ is a fundamental concept in the U.S. approach to data privacy, as it reflects principles of individual autonomy, freedom of choice, and rationality. Big Data, however, makes the traditional approach to informed consent incoherent and unsupportable, and indeed calls the entire concept of consent, at least as currently practiced in the U.S., into question.
Big Data kills the possibility of true informed consent because by its very nature one purpose of big data analytics is to find unexpected patterns in data. Informed consent requires at the very least that the person requesting the consent know what she is asking the subject to consent to. In principle, we hope that before the subject agrees she too comes to understand the scope of the agreement. But with big data analytics, particularly those based on Machine Learning, neither party to that conversation can know what the data may be used to discover.
I then go on to discuss the Revised Common Rule, which governs any federally funded human subjects research. The revision takes effect in early 2019, and it relaxes the informed consent rule in a way that will set a bad precedent for private data mining and research. Henceforth researchers will be permitted to obtain open-ended “broad consent”–-i.e. “prospective consent to unspecified future research”–-instead of requiring informed consent, or even ordinary consent, on a case-by-case basis. That’s not a step forward for privacy or personal control of data, and although it’s being driven by genuine public health concerns the side-effects could be very widespread.
Here’s the official letter from the Provost:
October 31, 2018
Dear Colleagues,
Patricia White informed me a few weeks ago of her decision to step down as dean of the School of Law after serving 10 years in that capacity at Miami, and 10 years at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. Now that she has told her faculty and staff, I would like to share this news with the University community and thank Trish for her tireless work as dean of Miami Law.
As dean, Trish has deftly navigated the challenges facing law schools and higher education across the country. While her expertise is vast, throughout her career she has demonstrated a steadfast focus on four key areas: students, the transformation of legal education, the interdisciplinary role of law, and public service. These longstanding commitments are reflected in many of the innovative programs and accomplishments established during her time at our law school. This includes recruiting a new generation of excellent faculty and very fine students.
We anticipate that Trish will serve as Dean until June 2019 and will remain on the law faculty. We are beginning the search process for her successor. We have begun to solicit proposals from major search firms, will soon name members of the Search Committee, and feel that we are well positioned to launch a successful national search for the next leader of our law school. Details about the search committee will be released soon.
We are deeply grateful to Trish for her dedicated service to our students, our law school, and our University. Please join me in thanking her and wishing her well.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey L. Duerk, Ph.D.
Which means….we’ll be doing a Dean search. One of my former colleagues once said that doing a Dean search is a bit like chewing aluminum foil. And he had a point…
Jotwell Blenderlaw Dan Froomkin’s White House Watch
