Arizona lawmakers are hoping to make it easier for politicians to take legal action as the use of deepfakes increases during election campaigns.

House Bill 2394 could pave the way for candidates, and Arizonans at large, to challenge digital impersonations if they can prove the material was produced without consent and with the intent to spread disinformation.

Karthik Ramakrishnan is the founder and CEO of Armilla AI.

He said more focus should be placed on regulating artificial-intelligence models, that campaigns are using to ensure that mis- and disinformation don't fall through the cracks.

"Take existing laws and extend them to cover the downsides risks of AI," said Ramakrishnan, "which I think is very, very prudent - rather than creating brand new laws in place."

The Federal Communications Commission recently banned robocalls that use voices generated by AI.

Ramakrishnan contended that AI isn't bad technology in and of itself, and added that it'll be hard to prevent AI-generated content from being produced - which is why he thinks Arizona's proposed law is a step in a better direction.

Ramakrishnan contended that rather than solely focusing on the negatives, politicians should also use AI in their favor.

"If an official or a candidate wanted to leverage AI, have their voice generated in multiple languages when they call certain demographics, tailor their message to a specific constituency," said Ramakrishnan. "Instead of recording 50 or 70, 100 different variations, they can have an AI generate those and speak to their potential voters."

But data from Pew Research Center shows Americans are increasingly cautious about the growing role of AI in their lives - with 52% of Americans stating they're more concerned than excited about AI in daily life.

For companies and organizations that use AI, Ramakrishnan encouraged them to willingly submit themselves to a third-party audit and post the results on their websites to instill more confidence and transparency.

For consumers of information in Arizona and around the country, he suggested having a stronger filter.

"We need to have that extra level of filter," said Ramakrishnan. "Is the plausibility of that being true? And doing our own research. Not taking everything at face value, but doing that second or third order of research, because this is about voting, this is about democracy, it is about your franchise."

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email

Veterans and service members in New Hampshire said legislation to create one of the nation's strictest voter ID laws would be a betrayal of their sacrifice.

The bill would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, and would get rid of the affidavit process to help new voters without documentation.

Curtis Register, a member of the Durham Town Council and a former Marine Corps officer, said birth certificates or naturalization papers can be hard to come by for military members, who regularly relocate or were born on bases overseas.

"These are all real obstacles that service members face and that families of service members face because it's a collective unit," Register observed. "One affects all."

Supporters of the bill argued it is needed to prevent widespread voter fraud, but have failed to provide evidence of electoral abuse. The bill has passed the House and Senate but Gov. Chris Sununu has not said whether he will sign it.

There are roughly 70,000 foreign-born American citizens serving in the military, or about 5% of the total active-duty force. More than 170,000 military members have become naturalized citizens since 2002.

Register noted proposed laws in New Hampshire and elsewhere requiring them to provide more documentation to vote than native-born citizens risks disenfranchising those who fight to preserve our most basic rights.

"It feels like a betrayal of those that have been injured, or sacrificed time away from their kids, or even an ultimate sacrifice; that we have folks trying to take away rights that were given via the Constitution," Register emphasized.

New Hampshire allows for same-day voter registration and opponents of the bill said it could prevent thousands of people from casting a ballot.

Others warned such a law would be unconstitutional. A similar bill in Kansas requiring proof of citizenship to vote was struck down by a federal judge in 2018.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

As this year's primary approaches, supporters of a voter initiative in Idaho hope future primaries will look different.

Idaho's primaries are being held on Tuesday. Earlier this month, supporters of the open primary initiative exceeded the number of signatures needed to appear on the November ballot and are awaiting verification. The measure would get rid of the state's closed primary system.

Margaret Kinzel, Boise chapter member of the group Mormon Women for Ethical Government, said a small percentage of voters in primaries aligned with the state's dominant Republican Party essentially decide elections.

"If you want to have any voice at all on who your elected officials will be, you have to vote in the Republican primary and with it being closed, you have to align with the Republican Party," Kinzel pointed out.

The initiative would replace the current system with a top-four primary open to everyone, regardless of party affiliation. It would also create a ranked choice voting system for the general election. Opponents argued the systems proposed are too complicated.

Kinzel noted under the current primary system, less moderate candidates have a better shot at winning. She contended the open primaries initiative would change it.

"To promote more civil discourse, you have to appeal to a broader range of voters in order to make it through both the primary and the general election," Kinzel stressed. "We're just hoping that's going to create more conversations between candidates and their constituents."

Kinzel added a tenet of her Mormon faith includes the respect and dignity of each individual.

"Open primaries really plays into that by trying to ensure that all people hear and are heard, particularly in our governmental processes," Kinzel explained. "It really does come back to a matter of faith for us."


get more stories like this via email

Montana constitutional experts say the state Supreme Court did the right thing by providing lawmakers a chance to override the governor's veto of a popular marijuana sales-tax bill.

Senate Bill 442 passed the Legislature with near unanimous support, but Gov. Greg Gianforte vetoed it minutes after the Senate adjourned, leaving lawmakers no chance to override the veto.

After a series of court challenges, the state Supreme Court confirmed lawmakers should be able to take an override vote by mail. Critics called it "judicial overreach."

Rylee Sommers-Flanagan, executive director of Helena-based Upper 7 Law, said the court did what it was supposed to do, despite Gianforte's efforts to sidestep the override ballot.

"Only as a result of the court order did the state comply with its constitutional obligation to ensure that legislators, at the end of the day, have the say in what laws are passed," Sommers-Flanagan asserted.

The bill would have used marijuana sales-tax revenue for veterans programs, social services and county road maintenance. In his veto note, Gianforte called it a "slippery slope," which could set a precedent for spending state dollars on local infrastructure projects.

Sommers-Flanagan noted her law firm did not take a position on the measure but represented Wild Montana and the Montana Wildlife Federation, which supported the measure and the legal action to require the mail-in override ballot.

"It was wildly popular. That's just factual," Sommers-Flanagan emphasized. "The governor and Secretary of State failed to comply with their constitutional duties to ensure that lawmakers had the final say. And then, the court told them they had to allow that to happen. They did so, and the Legislature decided they didn't want to override the veto."

She called the attacks on the court for requiring the vote "disappointing," and an attempt to avoid talking about the content of the bill.

The measure had support from hunters, outdoor enthusiasts, veterans and county governments. But critics argued the formula for distributing road maintenance money was unfair.


get more stories like this via email