1. ALASKA RECONSIDERS RANKED CHOICE VOTING

Alaska voters will again decide whether to keep the state’s unusual election system, which combines an open primary with ranked choice voting in the general election. Under the current system, the four candidates receiving the most primary votes advance regardless of party, and voters can then rank those candidates in November. This year’s primary exposed a complication when several candidates advanced but later withdrew, leaving some voters frustrated that candidates they supported would not appear on the general-election ballot. Critics of the system argue that it can be confusing and produces strategic maneuvering, while supporters contend that it gives voters more choices and encourages candidates to appeal beyond their traditional party bases. Alaska previously rejected a repeal effort by a narrow margin, but the controversies surrounding the 2026 primary have renewed the debate. Create an election-system comparison that examines Alaska’s top-four/ranked choice system alongside a traditional partisan primary followed by a general election. Explain how a candidate advances under each system, what choices voters receive, and how candidate withdrawals could affect each process. Then identify two arguments supporters make for Alaska’s system and two arguments critics make against it. Conclude by proposing one procedural change that could address a specific concern without taking a position on whether Alaska should retain or repeal ranked choice voting.

2. DRAFTKINGS’ USE OF A.I. RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT PROBLEM GAMBLING

DraftKings uses artificial intelligence and data analysis to determine which customers are likely to respond to promotional offers by gambling more, an investigation found. Former employees said machine-learning systems analyzed betting behavior and helped direct incentives toward customers expected to generate greater profits, leading some workers to worry that vulnerable gamblers could receive promotions encouraging them to keep betting. DraftKings disputes that characterization and says promotions target engaged customers rather than people based on their losses. The company provides tools such as temporary account restrictions and self-exclusion and monitors certain behaviors for signs of risky gambling. However, former employees said projects designed to predict gambling problems before a crisis were abandoned; DraftKings says it chose not to use those models because there was insufficient evidence that they would help customers. The controversy raises a broader ethical question about whether companies that can use A.I. to predict profitable consumer behavior also have a responsibility to use similar technology to identify potential harm. Imagine you are part of an independent ethics board reviewing the use of A.I. by online gambling companies. Draft a set of guidelines addressing when companies should be permitted to use behavioral data to target customers with promotions. Include standards for identifying vulnerable users, explain whether companies should be required to use predictive technology for consumer protection if they use it for marketing, and propose a method for independent oversight. For each guideline, identify the competing interests it attempts to balance.

3. CALIFORNIA REQUIRES DISCLOSURE OF PAID POLITICAL INFLUENCER POSTS

California has strengthened its rules governing social media influencers who are paid to post political content. State law already required disclosures for certain paid campaign posts, but a newly signed law allows administrative, civil, or criminal penalties when a person paid by a campaign committee fails to include the required disclaimer. The issue has become more significant as political campaigns increasingly use influencers to reach audiences on platforms such as TikTok, Instagram and YouTube. Supporters of disclosure requirements argue that voters should know when political messages that resemble ordinary social-media commentary are actually paid advertising. The debate also raises broader questions about how campaign-advertising rules developed for television, radio and print should apply to newer forms of online political communication. Conduct a “political content transparency audit.” Find three examples of political content from different types of social media accounts, without interacting with or sharing the posts. For each example, determine what clues would help a viewer distinguish personal commentary, traditional advertising, and sponsored influencer content. Then design a disclosure format that clearly communicates sponsorship without unnecessarily interfering with the creator’s message. Finish with a paragraph explaining why knowing who paid for a political message might change how a viewer evaluates it.

4. ED SHEERAN ADDRESSES GAZA CONTROVERSY AFTER TOUR CHANGES

Ed Sheeran apologized to fans after a dispute over comments about the Israel-Gaza war disrupted his stadium tour. The controversy began after supporting performer Macklemore made pro-Palestinian statements during shows and performed a protest song accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza, prompting objections from advocacy groups and resistance from some stadium owners. After Macklemore was removed, the tour’s remaining supporting acts also departed, leaving Sheeran to perform most of a Philadelphia concert by himself. Sheeran had previously tried to keep his concerts separate from political debate, but onstage he condemned Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel while also describing civilian suffering in Gaza and conditions in the West Bank in strongly critical terms. He also expressed concern about venues having the power to preapprove performers’ content. The episode highlights tensions among artistic expression, humanitarian advocacy, business relationships, audience expectations and the authority private venues exercise over performances. Analyze the controversy as a case study in artistic freedom and institutional power rather than deciding which political position is correct. Create a brief memo identifying the interests and responsibilities of four stakeholders: Sheeran, supporting performers, stadium owners or promoters, and concertgoers. Examine who has contractual or practical power to determine what happens onstage and distinguish between legal free-speech protections and decisions made by private businesses. End by identifying two questions you would need answered about the performers’ and venues’ contracts before reaching conclusions about who had authority to make programming decisions.

5. CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS CHALLENGE POSSIBLE FEDERAL AGENTS AT POLLING PLACES

A coalition of civil rights organizations and labor unions has sued the Trump administration in an effort to prevent armed federal agents from being deployed at voting locations. The plaintiffs argue that recent immigration enforcement activity, combined with administration statements about potentially sending agents to polling sites, could intimidate eligible voters and violate Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits intimidation, threats and coercion connected to voting. The administration has said immigration agents are not currently patrolling polling places; Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has said agents would be present in circumstances such as responding to a threat or serving a warrant. Other legal challenges concerning federal activity around voting sites have also been filed as early voting for the 2026 midterms gets underway. The dispute presents a constitutional and statutory question about how legitimate law-enforcement responsibilities can coexist with protections against voter intimidation. Prepare a neutral legal briefing that weighs the risks to security and the risk of voter intimidation. Explain what Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act is designed to prohibit, summarize the plaintiffs’ argument, and describe the circumstances in which federal officials say agents could have a legitimate reason to appear at a polling location. Then develop three hypothetical situations involving federal agents near a voting site and analyze what facts a court might consider when determining whether each situation involves legitimate law enforcement or unlawful voter intimidation.