Establishes Office of Algorithmic Civil Rights in DLPS to prevent discrimination in use of algorithms.
This bill establishes an Office of Algorithmic Civil Rights within the Department of Law and Public Safety, headed by a director appointed by the Attorney General. The office is intended to serve as a central state resource on the bias, discrimination, and other harms that may arise from the use of high-risk algorithmic systems by state entities, and to promote safer and more equitable use of those systems. It would also provide training, policy support, data analysis, and operational guidance to state agencies that use algorithms in areas such as housing, public benefits, employment, healthcare, education, and criminal justice.
The bill requires the office to conduct audits of high-risk algorithmic systems at least twice a year to assess compliance and identify discriminatory impacts. If bias or discrimination is found, the office must issue recommendations and the affected state entity must develop and implement a corrective action plan within a timeframe set by the director. Each state entity that uses, funds, or oversees algorithms must also designate an algorithmic civil rights liaison to work with the office. The office must submit annual reports to the Governor and Legislature describing systems reviewed, findings, corrective actions, and any recommended legislative or regulatory changes.
The bill would add a new office and regulatory function within the Department of Law and Public Safety and create a new oversight structure for state government use of automated and semi-automated decision tools. It would not directly regulate private-sector algorithm use, but it would affect state agencies that deploy or oversee algorithmic systems by requiring audits, liaison appointments, corrective action planning, and ongoing reporting. The measure also directs the office to adopt implementing rules and makes clear that it does not limit the authority of the Division on Civil Rights or other existing civil rights enforcement bodies.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest a generally reform-oriented, civil-rights-focused approach to algorithm governance, with an emphasis on preventing discrimination and improving transparency in state decision-making. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate or formal voting record here to show support or opposition. On its face, the bill appears designed to address growing concerns about automated decision systems while preserving existing civil rights enforcement authority.
The main potential points of contention are likely to be the scope of state oversight, the administrative burden on agencies, and the costs of staffing, audits, and compliance. State entities that rely on automated tools may be concerned about the frequency of audits, the requirement to implement corrective action plans, and the need to designate liaisons. Another possible issue is how broadly “high-risk algorithmic system” is interpreted and whether the office’s authority could overlap with or duplicate existing civil rights enforcement functions, although the bill expressly states it does not supersede those authorities.