Legislating AI for State Government Use
A review of state laws regarding government uses of artificial intelligence passed in 2023 and 2024.
State legislatures, the “laboratories of democracy,” have been remarkably active introducing and passing laws regarding artificial intelligence (AI) in the past few years. There were 354 AI-related bills introduced in 2024 alone. These laws cover the gamut of issues: use in the government, use by private companies, data use and protections, elections, criminal uses, and even (in North Dakota) explicitly excluding AI (as well as animals and “environmental elements”) from the legal definition of personhood. Many of the actions involve creating task forces to study legislative implications and providing recommendations in reports.
The dominant category, as seen below, was use of AI in government, which includes the creation of AI committees and task forces. Of the 24 AI bills passed by states in 2024, 8 had to do with government use, 8 with studies, 6 with use in elections, 6 with use in education, 5 with private use, and 1 with health (most AI bills were associated with multiple categories).
In this piece, I’ll provide a (nearly) exhaustive list of laws passed by state legislatures in the past two years explicitly related to use of AI by the state government. This analysis will rely heavily on the National Council of State Legislature’s (NCSL) AI Legislation Tracker from 2023 and 2024. This database only considers laws related to AI generally, and not to specific applications like autonomous vehicles or facial recognition.
In their categorization, NCSL defines government use as “[l]egislation focused on the use of artificial intelligence by government agencies and law enforcement.”
Government Use AI Bills Passed in 2024
To my knowledge, there were nine bills relating to government use of artificial intelligence that states passed in 2024.
Connecticut, SB 2, 2024:
Connecticut’s SB 2 undertakes a number of tasks, summarized on the state’s website as follows:
AN ACT CONCERNING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
To: (1) Establish requirements concerning the development, deployment and use of certain artificial intelligence systems; (2) establish an Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council; (3) prohibit dissemination of certain synthetic images; (4) prohibit distribution of, and agreements to distribute, certain deceptive media concerning elections; (5) require state agencies to study potential uses of generative artificial intelligence and propose pilot projects; (6) require the Commissioner of Administrative Services to provide training concerning generative artificial intelligence; (7) require the Chief Workforce Officer to (A) incorporate artificial intelligence training into workforce training programs, and (B) design a broadband outreach program; (8) require the Board of Regents for Higher Education to establish (A) a "Connecticut Citizens AI Academy", and (B) certificate programs in fields related to artificial intelligence; and (9) require the Department of Economic and Community Development to (A) develop a plan to offer high-performance computing services, (B) establish a confidential computing cluster, and (C) conduct a "CT AI Symposium".
For government use purposes, it is noteworthy that Connecticut is requiring state agencies themselves to study potential uses of AI and propose pilot projects, rather than having their “Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council” recommend applications to the agencies.
Florida, SB 1680, 2024:
NCSL provides the following title and summary:
Artificial Intelligence Transparency: Creates the Government Technology Modernization Council; requires the council to submit specified recommendations to the Legislature and specified reports to the governor and the Legislature by specified dates; prohibits a person from knowingly possessing or controlling or intentionally viewing photographs, motion pictures, representations, images, data files, computer depictions or other presentations which the person knows to include generated child pornography; provides for criminal penalties.
This bill is broadly similar to other AI task force bills, requiring recommendations and a specified delivery date. (Brief note: the bill status on NCSL’s website says “to governor” but has since become law.)
Indiana, SB 150, 2024:
NCSL’s bill summary reads:
Creates the Artificial Intelligence Task Force; provides that political subdivisions, state agencies, school corporations and state educational institutions may adopt a technology resources policy and cybersecurity policy, subject to specified guidelines; provides that a person with which a state agency enters into a licensing contract for use of a software application designed to run on generally available desktop or server hardware may not restrict the hardware on which the agency runs the software.
Indiana’s new AI law differs from others in that it explicitly empowers individual state agencies and schools to develop their own policies regarding AI use, as long as it falls within their guidelines.
Also interesting in Indiana’s law is their prohibition on software license restrictions. This may be related to licensing issues state governments can encounter when outsourcing information technology (IT) functions to cloud service providers.
Puerto Rico, HR 1097, 2024:
Again from NCSL:
Requires the Public Safety, Science and Technology Commission of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to investigate the implications of the use of artificial intelligence technologies with respect to security, human rights and civil liberties, privacy, health, ethics, economy, education, manufacturing, agriculture, energy, environment, consumption and any other aspect AI technologies may have in people's daily lives.
This bill sets the Public Safety, Science and Technology Commission a broad mission to investigate some of the possible implications of AI in the lives of the citizens of Puerto Rico.
Utah , HB 366, 2024:
Utah’s HB 366 is described as follows (NCSL):
Amends provisions regarding the chair of a Criminal Justice Coordinating Council; amends the crime for an escape; moves the crime for an aggravated escape to a separate statute; addresses the use of an algorithm or a risk assessment tool score in determinations about pretrial release, diversion, sentencing, probation and parole; relates to pretrial risk assessment tools; provides that the court may not rely solely on an algorithm or a risk assessment tool score when making any decision regarding probation.
Utah attempts to deal here with possible issues involving using algorithms for risk assessment and probation decisions. Note here the phrase “may not rely solely….” This language has cropped up in a number of bills regarding autonomous recommendation software, and has been criticized as providing a loophole. The question of what influences any given decision is inherently murky, and it would be very easy to claim an AI recommendation was not the sole reason for a decision.
The authors of said criticism, Grace Gedye and Matt Scherer, provide a list of recommendations for lawmakers including strengthening enforcement mechanisms and requiring transparency and explanations of decisions made which involve autonomous recommendation software. These are given in the context of state regulation of private companies, but are equally or more important when dealing with interactions between citizens and their government.
Utah, SB 149, 2024, The Artificial Intelligence Policy Act:
Utah’s AI Policy Act takes a number of actions. The bill’s highlighted provisions explain:
This Bill:
• defines terms;
• establishes liability for use of artificial intelligence (AI) that violates consumer protection laws if not properly disclosed;
• creates the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy (office) and a regulatory AI analysis program;
• enables temporary mitigation of regulatory impacts during AI pilot testing;
• establishes the Artificial Intelligence Learning Laboratory Program to assess technologies, risks, and policy;
• requires disclosure when an individual interacts with AI in a regulated occupation; and
• grants the office rulemaking authority over AI programs and regulatory exemptions.
The AI “Learning Laboratory Program” represents a slightly different, more exploratory approach to state studies of AI. Offering temporary regulatory mitigation for state agencies pursing pilot AI programs is to my knowledge a unique factor in Utah’s approach to AI in state government.
Virginia, SB 487, 2024:
Directs the Joint Commission on Technology and Science (JCOTS), in consultation with relevant stakeholders, to conduct an analysis of the use of artificial intelligence by public bodies in the commonwealth and the creation of a Commission on Artificial Intelligence. JCOTS shall submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the chairmen of the House Committees on Appropriations and Communications, Technology and Innovation and the Senate Committees on Finance and Appropriations and General Laws and Technology no later than Dec. 1, 2024.
For our purposes, Virginia’s action is one of the most direct. The narrow focus of the analysis it commissions is the use of artificial intelligence by public bodies in Virginia. It also sets a fairly short timeframe for this report to be completed: by December 2024.
U.S. Virgin Islands, B 131, 2024:
Amends specified title of the state code to establish a real-time crime center centralized crime data system within the State Police Department.
This more specific bill highlights a possible application of AI in state governments, with the associated risks that appear anytime algorithms are applied to assisting law enforcement. Further details on this bill have proven hard to find.
West Virginia, HB 5690, 2024:
In 2024, West Virginia established an Artificial Intelligence Taskforce within the Office of Technology, and tasked it with studying a broad range of AI-related issues:
(e) The responsibilities of the Task Force shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) Recommending a definition of artificial intelligence as it pertains to its use in technology for use in legislation.
(2) Determining the relevant state agency or agencies to develop and oversee artificial intelligence policy and implementation of that policy.
(3) Determining which public interest use cases exist or may exist for artificial intelligence;
(4) Developing best practices for public sector uses of artificial intelligence in the State;
(5) Recommending legislation to protect individual rights, civil liberties, and consumer data as it relates to generative artificial intelligence;
(6) Recommending model policies for schools to address the use of artificial intelligence by students in the classroom;
(7) Determining and making recommendations regarding whether the Task Force should be extended to monitor, analyze, and make findings and recommendations to keep pace with changes in artificial intelligence technology and uses of the technology.
(8) Assessing the use of artificial intelligence in the workforce and its effect on employment levels, types of employment, and the deployment of workers;
(9) Taking an inventory of the current or proposed use of artificial intelligence within state agencies;
(10) Other topics related to artificial intelligence that may arise from testimony or reports to the Task Force submitted by its members, invited guests, or the public.
This law requires the Task Force deliver it’s final report and recommendations to the Governor and Legislature by July 1, 2025.
That’s a brief summary of all nine government use AI bills states passed in 2024. Now we’ll go back to 2023.
Government Use AI Bills Passed in 2023
Again to the best of my knowledge, there were 28 AI related bills passed by state legislatures in 2023, 11 having to do with government use of AI (data from NCSL).
Arizona, H 2482, 2023:
Provides that the Law Enforcement Crime Victim Notification Fund is established consisting of legislative appropriations, enables the county or city, or both, or tribal law enforcement agency or university police department-based deployment of an automated crime victim notification system to a user base consisting of law enforcement agencies, appropriates funds.
This bill appropriates funds for a given application of artificial intelligence, namely an automated crime notification system.
California, A 302, 2023:
Again, from NCSL:
Requires the Department of Technology, in coordination with other interagency bodies, to conduct, on or before specified date, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems, as defined, that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, state agencies.
This limited task, compiling an inventory of all existing and proposed uses, strikes me as a reasonable move that will help give state lawmakers more information to inform their decision making. This is similar to Virginia’s 2024 law enumerated above.
Connecticut, SB 1103, 2023:
Relates to artificial intelligence, automated decision-making and personal data privacy, provides that the Office of Policy and Management shall develop and establish policies and procedures concerning the development, procurement, implementation, utilization and ongoing assessment of systems that employ artificial intelligence and are in use by State agencies.
Louisiana, SCR 49, 2023:
Requests the Joint Committee on Technology and Cybersecurity to study the impact of artificial intelligence in operations, procurement, and policy.
Louisiana here commissions a study targeted at government operations.
Minnesota, SB 4909, 2023:
Relates to state government, provides law for judiciary, public safety, crime, sentencing, evidence, courts, law enforcement, firearms, controlled substances, corrections, clemency, expungement, rehabilitation and reinvestment, civil law, community supervision, supervised release, and human rights, provides for rulemaking, provides for reports, provides for criminal and civil penalties.
I almost didn’t include this one, but it made NCSL’s database. It makes only one mention of AI, requiring that their state fusion center disclose its methods, including the use of AI, to the state legislature.
North Carolina, HB 259, 2023:
Here, North Carolina is trying something different. NCSL:
Makes base budget appropriations for current operations of state agencies, departments, and institutions; appropriates $3.2 million for the 2023-2024 fiscal year as a directed grant to New Hanover County Schools and $2 million as a directed grant to Davidson County Schools for an AI School Safety Pilot Program.
Digging into the bill a bit, the North Carolina directs funding to public schools to implement a school safety program that “integrates AI technology into existing access controls, alerting protocols, and intercom systems.” Reports back to the legislature on the program are due in January 2025.
North Dakota, HB 1003, 2023:
In a larger appropriations bill, the North Dakota legislature commissioned an interim study on AI’s government impacts:
SECTION 44. LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT STUDY - ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IMPACTS.
During the 2023-24 interim, the legislative management shall consider studying the emergence of artificial intelligence and the potential impacts on the state's institutions, agencies, businesses, citizens, and youth. The study must include a review of the effect of artificial intelligence on the provision of health care, effects on student learning, potential opportunities or threats to the integrity of state services, the potential impact on electoral processes, including mitigating action to be taken leading up to the 2024 state elections, opportunities for state investment or policy changes to promote artificial intelligence businesses, and cybersecurity implications across all state institutions. The legislative management shall report its findings and recommendations, together with any legislation required to implement the recommendations, to the sixty-ninth legislative assembly
Notably, this legislature did not pass any AI related bills in the 2024 session. They did pass a 2023 bill excluding AI from “personhood” status.
Rhode Island, HR 6423, 2023:
Requests the Department of Administration and the Office of Information Technology to review and evaluate the use and development of artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision systems and provide recommendations regarding ongoing and upcoming plans to expand their use and current security and implementation procedures.
Texas HB 2060, 2023:
This bill created Texas’s Artificial Intelligence advisory council.
Texas, S 2085, 2023:
This created a crime victim notification system. It does not mention AI explicitly, but it was in NCSL’s database, so I’ve included it here.
West Virginia H 3214, 2023:
Finally, West Virginia wants to use AI to better monitor their roads and predict required maintenance. From NCSL:
Creates the Road Optimization and Assessment Data Pilot Program, requires the commissioner of highways to implement the program, specifies assessment methods and term of program, requires reporting by the Division of Highways.
This is an ambitious pilot program attempting a novel government use of AI systems, and I’m eager to see how it goes.
I realize this was a long list, and there’s a good chance there’s bills that I missed. All in all, it seems as if states are in an exploratory phase with regard to applications for AI in state government. I am eager to see what these studies come up with and how governments continue to attempt to apply this new technology to government challenges.
Questions? Comments? Please feel free to reach out. I hope you enjoyed reading.