AP US Government and Politics Ultimate Guide

AP Gov Exam Structure

Section I: Multiple Choice

55 Questions | 1 Hour 20 Minutes | 50% of Exam Score

Section II: Free Response

4 Questions | 1 Hour 40 Minutes | 50% of Exam Score

1) Concept Application FRQ

Just like SAQs in other APs, asks you to apply your knowledge to an event/situation you do not know. (described in stimulus)

Tips

  • Write in complete sentences

  • “Identify __”: one sentence

  • “Explain/Describe/Justify ___”: 2-3 sentences

  • Be specific in evidence

  • ALWAYS tie your answer back to the prompt

2) Quantitative FRQ

Interpret a graph/chart/etc and answer the prompts regarding those charts/graphs. This is generally considered the easiest FRQ in AP Gov.

  • It is split four questions, a, b, c, and d.

  • a & b are generally really easy, just looking at the chart and identifying what the graph shows.

    • ex: graph showing % of voters identifying as republican, democrat, and [year] to [year]

  • c & d ask you to explain the trend identified in a & b

    • ex: Explain one reason the political party identified in part a/b may have experiences growth (if you chose independents, a potential answer might be the increasing distrust in government, if the data is more recent)

Tips

  • Write in complete sentences

  • “Identify __”: one sentence

  • “Explain/Describe/Justify ___”: 2-3 sentences

  • Be specific in evidence

  • ALWAYS tie your answer back to the prompt

3) SCOTUS (Supreme Court) Comparison FRQ

Compare a supreme court case you don’t know (explain with stimulus) with a required supreme court case.

Structure

  • Split into 3 questions, generally with each requiring you to compare one of the four main structures of court cases

    • Facts of the case

    • Constitutional issue of the case

    • Ruling of the case

    • Significance of the case.

  • May require to you to apply the unknown case to broader knowledge, like asking how interest groups might use this case to further their agenda or what steps can be taken to advocate for similar decisions in the future, highlighting the interconnectedness of case law and political activism.

Tips:

  • Write in complete sentences

  • “Identify __”: one sentence

  • “Explain/Describe/Justify ___”: 2-3 sentences

  • Be specific with evidence

  • ALWAYS tie your answer back to the prompt

4) Argumentative Essay

6 Points Total

  • Thesis - 1 point

    • [Claim] because x, y, z. (XYZ are evidence)

  • Evidence - 3 points

    • Use two pieces of evidence to support your thesis, one MUST one of the three foundational documents listed in the prompt

      • To be safe, try to use the pieces of evidence multiple times. That way, if one way you use the evidence doesn’t really support your thesis, you have another shot with the second way you used it.

    • Reasoning - 1 point

      • Explain how your evidence supports your thesis

        • “Name, explain, and analyze your evidence,” name what the evidence is, explain what the evidence claims, and analyze how they supports your claim

    • Counterargument & Rebuttal - 1 point

      • Explain a counterargument and prove why your POV is better

      • “Some way claim that ___, however, ____”

Unit 1

  • Enlightenment influences

    • natural rights

    • popular sovereignty

    • social contract

    • republicanism

  • Forms of democracy

    • Participatory

    • Elite

    • Pluralist

    • Hyperpluralist

  • Debates of federalism and fights about federal power

    • Federalists and antifederalists

  • Why the articles of confederation failed

    • Weak federal government

      • No militia

      • No taxing powers

      • No executive

    • Strong state government

      • All states needed to ratify

    • Shay’s rebellion

  • Compromises that lead to the constitution

    • Great compromise (representation, bicameral congress)

    • Electoral College

    • 3/5ths Compromise

    • Bill of Rights

  • Separation of powers/checks and balances

  • Federalism

    • Dual federalism - separation of powers

    • Cooperative federalism - sharing of powers

    • Devolution - Returning powers to states

  • Delegation of powers

    • Enumerated powers

    • Reserved powers

    • Concurrent powers

    • implied powers

    • Fiscal federalism

      • Categorical grants (strings attached)

      • Block grants

  • How federal has changed over time

    • 10th amendment - reserved for state government

    • 14th amendment - selective incorporation, bill of rights applies to states

    • congress clause, congress regulates commerce

    • elastic/necessary and proper clause

      • McCulloch vs Maryland (pro-federal)

      • US v Lopez (pro-state)

  • Political System

Unit 2

  • Congress makes laws/legislation

    • Article I section 8

    • Tax

    • Declare War

    • Interstate commerce

    • Regulate immigration

  • Congress representation

    • Senate - two reps per state

    • House of reps - by population

  • Leadership in congress

    • Speaker of the house

    • Majority and minority leaders (house and senate)

    • Majority and minority whips (house and senate)

    • President of the senate (vice president of US)

      • cannot vote

    • President pro temp

      • President when vice president is gone

  • Committees

    • Standing committees - always exist

    • Joint committees - senate and house members

    • Select committees - temporary

  • Bills → laws

    • Must pass house and senate in identical form

    • 1) Bill introduced by reps

      • Pork-barrel spending often added

    • 2) Bill then assigned to committee

    • 3) Congress votes

    • 4) bill go to president to sign or veto

    • Log-rolling: “I’ll vote for your bill, you vote for mine”

  • Spending

    • Mandatory spending - required spending

    • discretionary spending - spending that may vary

  • Increasing partisanship makes compromise hard

  • Political and Racial Gerrymandering

    • Baker v Carr

    • Shaw v Reno

  • Representative models

    • Trustee model - Believe they’ve been voted in to do what they believe is best, vote based on their own beliefs

    • Delegate Model - vote for what the people want

    • Politico Model - hybrid of other two

  • President had no formal law-making powers, but uses formal/informal powers to get policy agenda passed

    • Vetos / Pocket Veto

    • Executive Orders

    • Bargaining

    • Bully Pulpit

  • Congressional/Executive conflict

    • War Powers Act

    • Executive can not enforce laws he disagrees with

    • Congress can withhold funding from bureaucracy

    • Supreme court appointments, other appointments

  • Judicial conflict w/ Executive/Legislative

    • Judicial Review (marbury v madison)

  • Expansion of Federal Power

    • Andrew Jackson - vetos, trail of tears

    • Abraham Lincoln - civil war/ending slavery

    • FDR - New deal programs

  • President’s communication - bully pulpit

    • FDR’s fireside chats

    • Televised debates

    • Social Media

  • Judicial structure

    • US district courts → US circuit court of appeals → US Supreme Court

    • Stare - precedents, “let it stand”

    • Original jurisdiction vs appellate jurisdiction

    • Life tenure / being unelected - protects court from bias from trying to gain public favor

  • Federal Bureaucracy

    • Federal Secretaries

    • Executive departments → departments → agencies, commissions, government corporations (somewhat independent)

    • Iron Triangles

      • Bureaucracy

      • Interest Group

      • Congressmen/committees

Unit 3

  • Bill of rights protects individual liberties and rights

  • Individual Liberties vs Rights

  • There are restrictions of rights

  • US Constitution and Amendment

    • 1st Amendment - Freedom of speech & religion

      • Exercise Clause

      • Establishment Clause

    • 2nd Amendment - Right to own guns

    • 3rd Amendment - Right to not house soldiers

    • 4th Amendment - Protected from unwarranted search & seizure - police need a warrant

    • 5th Amendment - Right to due process, probable cause, Miranda Rights, can’t be tried twice for the same crime

    • 6th Amendment - Right to speedy trial, right to jury in criminal trials

    • 7th Amendment - Jury Trial in citizen trial

    • 8th Amendment - Cruel and unusual Punishment

    • 9th Amendment - non-enumerated rights kept by the people

    • 10th Amendment - rights reserved to states

    • 14th amendment - Equal protection and citizenship

Unit 4

  • Political Socialization 

    • Family

    • Friends

    • Education

    • Media

    • Culture

  • Generational and Age-related changes in politics

  • Public Opinion Polls

    • Exit Polls

    • Tracking Polls

    • Entrance Polls

  • Issues with polls

    • Sampling Error

    • Bias questions

  • Political Ideology

    • Conservative

    • Liberal

  • Political Parties

    • Republican

    • Democrat

    • Libertarian

    • “Third parties”

  • Public policy only reflects the beliefs of those who participate in politics

Unit 5

  • Voting rights have expanded over time

    • 15th amendment - African-American voting rights

    • 17th amendment - direct senator elections

    • 19th amendment - women voting rights

    • 24th - Abolished poll taxes

    • 26th - Lowered voting age to 18

  • Voting behavior

    • Rational Choice

    • Retrospective Voting

    • Prospect Voting

    • Straight-Ticket Voting

  • Factors that influence voter turnout

    • Voter ID laws

    • Political efficacy - do they feel their vote matters?

    • Type of election

    • Demographics

      • More POC

      • More Older voters

  • Linkage institutions (unit 1 again)

  • Primaries vs caucuses

  • Open vs Closed Primaries

  • Party Realignment / Dealignment

  • Issues with the two-party system

    • Winner-take-all

  • Factors that influence Interest Group Success

    • Size

    • Intensity

    • Financial Resources

    • Free-rider problem

  • Electoral College

  • Incumbent Advantage

  • Campaign Spending

  • Watchdog Agency/Investigative Journalism

  • Media bias/sensationalism

Required Court Cases

  • McCulloch Vs Maryland

    • Facts: US Bank created branches in various states, so Maryland taxed the bank a ridiculous amount, so the bank sued.

    • Issue: Was the bank was allowed under necessary and proper clause (implied power)

    • Ruling: Yes

    • Significance: legitimized implied power and strengthened federal power

  • United States vs Lopez

    • Facts: A high school senior brought a gun to school and was arrested. Federal law banned guns in school

    • Issue: The federal gov had no power to regulate guns, they passed this law under the commerce clause, claiming that guns in schools because gun violence in schools hurts interstate commerce.

    • Ruling: The supreme court sided against the federal gov and removed the regulation

    • Significance: Showed restrictions of federal powers

  • Baker v Carr

    • Facts: Tennessee hasn’t redrawn their districts, and with unequal population changes, some voters had much more power than others

    • Issue: Were legislative districts justiciable (previously no) and did this unequal power violate the 14th amendment’s equal protections clause?

    • Ruling: Legislative districts were justiciable and this violated the 14th amendment

    • Significance: created the one-person-one-vote doctrine, increased judicial power

  • Shaw vs Reno

    • facts: NC had few African-American reps, so they redrew district lines to created two majority black district (racial gerrymandering)

    • Issue: Did this violate the one person one vote doctrine, was gerrymandering okay if it was to help an underrepresented group?

    • Ruling: this was against the colorblind interpretation of the constitution and against one person one vote

    • significance: banned racial gerrymandering

  • Marybury vs Madison

    • Issue: In his last days of his presidency, federalist John Adams created a ton of new courts and appointed many judges to dilute the power of the next democratic-republican president Jefferson. Jefferson didn’t deliver these appointments and one would-be judge sued

    • Issue: Did the court has the power to appoint/approve judges, as claimed in the judiciary act?

    • Ruling: Marbury did have the right to his appointment, but the judiciary act itself was unconstitutional, so it was never given.

    • Significant: This case established the principle of judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, significantly increasing the power of the judiciary.

  • Engel v Vitale

    • Facts: NY law created a nondenominational prayer for students along with the pledge of allegiance, but parent sued

    • Issue: Was this a violation of the 1st amendment’s establish clause, which prevents congress from respecting an establishment of religion?

    • Ruling: This was a violation of the establishment clause

    • Significant: Used a precedent in future cases about religion in school/government and the establishment clause

  • Wisconsin vs Yoder

    • Facts: Amish families removed their children from school after 8th grade because they felt it was unnecessary and they didn’t want their children taught secular beliefs. However, Wisconsin required children to be in school until the age of 16

    • Issue: Did the compulsory education law violate the 1st amendment free exercise clause?

    • Ruling: This violated the free exercise clause

    • Significance: Used a precedent in future cases about religion in school/government and the free exercise clause

  • Tinker vs DeMoin e

    • Facts: Students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam war, and the school made a rule against it and punished the students.

    • Issue: Could students symbolic and silent speech protected under the 1st amendment freedom of speech, or did the school have the right to prevent disruption?

    • Ruling: Unless the school had substantial proof of disruption, students’ symbol free speech was protected

    • Significant: Created the “substantial disruption” test and expanded free speech to symbolic speech

  • Schenck vs the United States

    • Facts: US passed the espionage act which outlawed hindrances to military recruitment and the draft. Schenck wrote and distributed a pamphlet urging draft-age men to resist the draft and was arrested.

    • Issue: Did the espionage act violate the 1st amendment freedom of speech?

    • Ruling: Schenck was not just protesting the draft, he was encouraging people to avoid the draft (and break the law,) which was not protected speech. It was compared to yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, which is dangerous and does not fall under protected speech either.

    • Significant: Demonstrated restrictions on freedom of speech (especially during war/crisis), created the “clear and present danger test,” which was used to determine if speech was protected or not based on if they caused a clear and present danger.

  • New York Times vs US

    • Facts: A NYT reporter leaked the pentagon papers that revealed the government had lied about the already controversial Vietnam war. The Nixon tried to use prior restraint to prevent anything else about the papers from being published. NYT sued.

    • Issue: Did Nixon’s actions violate the 1st amendment freedom of the press, was prior restraint itself a violation of the 1st amendment?

    • Ruling: Nixon’s administration did violate the first amendment

    • Significance: Ruled prior restraint was rarely applicable and to use it there must be a valid reason and danger posed. Protected freedom of speech and press.

      • Ex: Leaking the time and location of the D-Day invasion wouldn’t been dangerous to the US and allies’ armies and hurt the attack, but wanting to hide that the president had been lying did not cause danger

  • Mcdonald v Chicago

    • Facts: McDonald lived in a dangerous area that was frequently robbed and believed a clunky, large hunting rifles would not be practical for protection like an handgun would be, but Chicago had restrictive handgun laws.

    • Issue: Did the handgun laws violate the 2nd amendment right to bear arms?

    • Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of McDonald, stating that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment, invalidating Chicago's handgun ban.

    • Significant: Through the Fourteenth amendment’s selective incorporation, a process through which the bill of rights, which technically only applies to the federal government, can be applied to the state government, meant that state/city laws against handguns cannot violate the 2nd amendment.

  • Gideon vs Wainwright

    • Facts: Gideon had robbed a poll hall and was arrested. He was poor, and in other states, he had received a lawyer free of charge, but in Florida, they only appointed lawyers in federal cases.

    • Issue: Did the 6th amendment’s right to counsel, which protects citizens from the federal government, apply to state governments?

    • Ruling: Through the 14th amendment and selective incorporation, the 6th amendment was applied to the states

    • Significance: Applied the 6th amendment to states and furthered selective incorporation.

  • Brown v Board of Education

    • Facts: Schools were segregated under Plessy v Fergeson’s “Separate but equal” doctrine.

    • Issue: Did segregation violate the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment?

    • Ruling: Segregation was inherently unequal and is against the 14th amendment

    • Significance: Victory for the civil rights movement, required desegregation, promoted equality, angered southern states.

  • Citizens United vs FEC

    • Facts: The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA) made it illegal for corporations and nonprofits to engage in electioneering (creating support for a candidate) for 60 days before an election and 30 before a primary. Citizens United, a political group, created a movie meant to “expose” Hillary Clinton and prevent her from winning the democratic primary. However, it wasnt able to be realized until the period where corporations cannot speak. Citizens United sued.

    • Issue: Was BCRA a violation of the freedom of speech of corporations? Previously, corporations had been ruled as groups of people and therefore had 1st amendment protections

    • Ruling: BCRA’s restriction on speech was unconstitutional

    • Significance: In the political arena, money = speech, so is it fair for those with the most money to have the loudest voice? This case found yes, as long as they don’t collaborate directly with a candidate.

Required Documents:

  • Declaration of Independence

    • Enlightenment Ideals

      • Natural Rights

      • Popular Sovereignty

      • Social Contract

  • Federalist 10

    • Factions were dangerous

    • Protect against factions

      • Separation of powers

      • Republicanism/representation

      • competition of factions

  • Brutus 1

    • Disliked large gov and infringement on rights

    • Supported participatory model

    • Tyranny of the majority

    • US is too big to be properly controlled by one gov

    • Supremacy Clause gave the government too much power

  • Articles of Confederation

    • Weak federal gov

    • Strong state government, all must agree to amend

      • States were sovereign and supreme

    • Only a Legislative Branch

  • US Constitution

    • Stronger federal gov

    • Solved issues w/ Articles of Confederation

    • Articles: Large Elephants Jump Far And Nap Regularly

      1. Large - Legislative

      2. Elephants - Executive

      3. Jump - Judicial

      4. Far - Federalism/State Relations

      5. And - Amendment Process

      6. Nap - Nation Supremacy

      7. Regularly - Ratification

  • Federalist 51

    • Humans suck and will always become tyrannical, so everyone in gov needs to be checked to prevent this

    • Separation of Powers

  • Federalist 70

    • A single executive is best

      • provides more energy, acts quicker

      • Easy to place blame

    • Single Executive complements many representatives in Legislative

  • Federalist 78

    • Judges should hold their offices as long as they dont mess up or die because this prevents them from needing to pander to the public for votes

    • Judges need to know a lot of precedents/articles/etc, so experience is good, and constant turnover is bad, lifetime offices are good

    • Judges job = Judicial Review

    • Judicial Branch is not superior to the legislative branch since they dont “undo” legislation, unconstitutional laws are already null and void and judges simply act as a intermediary

  • Letter from a Birmingham jail

    • Illustrates how the 14th amendment equal protection clause supports social movements

    • Waiting does not lead to change, action must be taken

    • Moderation is bad