New Hurdles to Redistricting Reform: State Evasion, Moore, and Partisan Gerrymandering

Proponents of fair districting reforms continue to face challenges in seeking to address the problem of partisan gerrymandering. Even in states that have successfully enacted redistricting reforms, state actors have been able to evade compliance, and state courts have been unable to guarantee fair districts. In addition, the Supreme Court’s decision in Moore v. Harper could also limit state court efforts to guarantee fair districts. This Article argues that state evasion and Moore threaten to undermine the efficacy of fair districting norms recognized by state courts or enacted through either state political processes. Moore could create a one-way ratchet by weakening state courts’ role in policing partisan gerrymandering, while allowing state courts to dismantle fair districts and fail to address the problem of evasion. This Article analyzes these dynamics by examining recent examples of evasion of anti-partisan gerrymandering norms by legislatures, redistricting commissions, and other political actors in the post-2020 redistricting cycle in Ohio, New York, and Florida. The Article begins by situating Moore and state evasion dynamics within theories of federalism, democracy, and election law. It then provides a descriptive account of state partisan gerrymandering regimes, by analyzing variation in the pathways through which states have entrenched norms against partisan gerrymandering, and variation in evasion strategies employed by political actors. Finally, the Article assesses the broader implications of Moore and state evasion dynamics for state court decision-making and the efficacy of state reforms

Operations Research in Civil and Environmental Engineering

The purpose of this text is introduce fundamental operations research techniques to the civil and/or environmental engineering student, providing a broad background in linear programming, integer programming and network optimization. The material is presented in such a manner so that the student does not need an extensive background in operations research or or linear algebra. Applications include transportation engineering, project management and general civil and environmental engineering applications.https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/open_educational_resource/1000/thumbnail.jp

Proof: The Rule of Law’s Most Essential Element

In this seemingly apocalyptic age, when the rule of law appears under siege, the way forward should involve reaffirming our belief in the rule of law, through reaffirming the importance of proof to the rule of law. Indeed, proof is the rule of law’s most essential element, a significance codified in legal rules, exemplified by legal theory, and reflected in the main source of belief in the rule of law, its effectiveness

Using single cell genomics to explore the impact of marine viruses on microbial respiration.

Viral metabolic reprograming of marine prokaryotes, through the use of virally encoded auxiliary metabolic genes (AMGs), plays a critical role in marine ecosystem function by influencing biochemical cycles and genetic diversity in these environments. Despite the fundamental role viruses play in global environmental ecosystems, they remain an understudied aspect of microbial ecology and evolution, in part due to the methods available for studying virus host interactions in natural systems. Thus far, metagenomic analyses have been used to study the interactions of virus host pairs, but these types of analyses have their limitations in accurately linking viruses to hosts, or culture-based approaches, which are limited in their representation of natural environments (1, 2). To this end, single cell genomics can be used to increase the resolution of these studies by resolving limitations posed by traditional methods of investigation in their ability to directly link virus host pairs and through direct collection of cells that results in a more accurate representation of natural environments. Here we demonstrate a potential use of the pairing of single cell genomes with phenotypic measurements of respiration for those individual cells, to study the relationship between the presence of virally encoded AMGs and phenotypic characteristics of their host. We identified 2 virally encoded AMGS involved in cellular energy and respiration pathways that may play a role in altering the oxygen consumption of the host

Getting to Maybe: An Interview with Michael Fischl & Jeremy Paul

Since 1999, Getting to Maybe has served as a key resource for first-year law students. Professors Michael Fischl and Jeremy Paul wrote the definitive guide on how to excel on law school exams and master legal reasoning. Professors Fischl and Paul have not only had a massive impact at UConn Law, but they’ve also influenced thousands of law students nationally and legal education as a whole. UConn Law Professor Kiel Brennan-Marquez and Riley Breakell, UConn Law Class of 2023, sat down with the authors to discuss Getting to Maybe and the 2023 release of the second edition. The conversation features key insights into the book and a compelling discussion of the current state of legal education

Navigating Legal Ethics and Law School Curricula: Attempting to Find Technology Competency Without a Compass

Comment 8 of Model Rule 1.1 of the Professional Rules of Conduct requires attorneys to be ethically accountable for technology competence. However, the drafting of the language of Rule 1.1 is vague. As a result, attorneys, law firms, and law schools apply Rule 1.1 differently and emphasize topics they deem most important. Per American Bar Association (ABA) Standard 301, law schools must maintain a rigorous program of legal education that prepares their students for effective, ethical, and responsible participation as members of the legal profession. Law schools have summarily responded to Rule 1.1 and Standard 301 by adding and offering courses in the technology space. Arguably, law schools perceive that they are aligning their course curricula with law firm expectations and hiring practices by offering courses that respond to law 0rm hiring trends. Unfortunately, job descriptions for attorney positions traditionally reflect only some of the technology skills required or mandated for those positions. Moreover, as new positions become available, or lateral positions open, job descriptions are equally vague about what is necessary for a successful candidate beyond already-existing knowledge in that field. This Article proposes that law schools and law firms must share a view of technology competence and its application in legal practice in the absence of a clear-cut standard for technology competence from the ABA and state courts. The authors draw their recommendations from their own empirical studies in legal technology course instruction and law firm job descriptions. The authors look to the Foundations of the Whole Lawyer Model and the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (“IAALS”) Hiring Guide to advocate for a more holistic approach to lawyering that integrates technology and technology competence into all aspects of law practice. The authors recommend that law firms use the Whole Lawyer approach to draft their job descriptions with language that properly addresses the technology competencies necessary for those positions. Only then will law schools be able to properly align their course curricula to meet the current needs of technology competence in modern legal practice

Discovering the Future of Personal Jurisdiction

A deluge is coming. The Supreme Court’s two most recent personal jurisdiction cases—Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District and Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad—have thrown this area of law into even more flux than before. Because of these cases’ heavy emphasis on the fact-intensive nature of personal jurisdiction law, plaintiffs facing down motions to dismiss based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) are going to start asking an obvious question: If the Supreme Court thinks facts are so important to personal jurisdiction, then should I try to get access to more facts? The result will be more requests to conduct jurisdictional discovery, and more courts having to figure out how to decide those requests. Despite the occasional aspersions cast upon it, jurisdictional discovery’s newfound relevance is to be applauded. When used wisely, the practice can be more than just a useful tool for uncovering facts. It can also further hone the law of personal jurisdiction, rendering the doctrine more attune to the interests of all the parties involved. All that is needed is more guidance on how to use that tool. This Article provides such guidance. Examining hundreds of orders that decided jurisdictional discovery requests, this Article uncovers a coherent set of rationales that courts have tacitly relied upon when rendering these decisions. These rationales provide a principled and practical framework for deciding jurisdictional discovery requests, one that courts can use both to bring additional coherence to the practice and to field what is likely to be the flood of discovery requests to come