2025 AP AP United States Government and Politics Practice Paper with Answers

A. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau exercised its rule-making authority (also acceptable: administrative discretion / regulatory power). By drafting and issuing binding requirements regarding automated loan denials without needing explicit day-to-day statutory instructions, the bureaucratic agency converted broad legislative mandates into enforceable policy.

B. Congress can check or limit this regulatory action through several constitutional mechanisms:
- Legislative Action / Statute: Congress can pass a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or enact new legislation that explicitly narrows the agency's jurisdiction over AI lending algorithms, overriding the bureaucratic rule.
- Power of the Purse: Congress can reduce appropriations or attach budgetary riders prohibiting the CFPB from using federal funds to enforce the algorithmic disclosure rule.
- Committee Oversight: The House Financial Services Committee can summon CFPB leadership to public oversight hearings to question agency decisions and apply political pressure for rule revisions.

C. The scenario reflects a pluralist democracy because power is distributed among competing interest groups representing varied societal interests (industry trade associations protecting financial firms vs. consumer advocacy groups protecting loan applicants). Both groups actively utilize multiple access points in government—such as lobbying congressional committees and working directly with executive agencies—to compete and influence public policy.

Part A (1 point):
- 1 point for an accurate description of the agency exercising rule-making authority, regulatory authority, or bureaucratic discretionary authority.

Part B (1 point):
- 1 point for an explanation of a constitutional or statutory method Congress can use to limit the agency's rule (e.g., passing legislation to overturn/restrict the rule, withholding or restricting agency funding through the power of the purse, or conducting committee oversight investigations/hearings to pressure agency leadership).

Part C (1 point):
- 1 point for an explanation connecting the scenario to pluralist democracy (must mention competing organized groups attempting to influence policymakers/government through access points such as legislative lobbying or bureaucratic advocacy).

### Complete Solution

Part A:
According to the table, locate the row labeled "18–29" and find the column for the "2018 Midterm" election. The value is 36%.

Part B:
Comparing any given midterm election (2014, 2018, 2022) to adjacent presidential elections (2012, 2016, 2020), every demographic experiences a decline in voter participation during midterms. Thus, voter turnout is systematically and consistently higher during presidential elections than during midterm elections across all age groups.

Part C:
In midterm elections, overall turnout drops, but the decrease is disproportionately larger among younger voters, while older voters (65+) maintain relatively high turnout (e.g., 59%–66%). Consequently, campaigns and candidates running for office during midterm cycles are incentivized to target older voters with specific campaign messaging, television advertising, and mobilization efforts (such as issues concerning retirement benefits or healthcare) rather than expending finite resources on lower-propensity younger voters.

Part D:
Political efficacy is the belief that one's political participation makes a difference and can influence government policy. Older voters typically exhibit higher internal and external political efficacy because they directly receive federal benefits (Social Security, Medicare) and have established habits of civic participation, making them confident that government actions matter to them. In contrast, younger voters often possess lower political efficacy due to feeling disconnected from the political system or feeling that neither major party responds to their specific needs, leading to lower voter turnout.

Question 2: Quantitative Analysis (4 points total)

Part A (1 point):
- 1 point for correctly identifying the turnout rate of voters aged 18–29 in 2018: 36%.

Part B (1 point):
- 1 point for describing the trend between presidential and midterm elections.
- Acceptable responses include:
- Voter turnout is consistently higher in presidential elections than in midterm elections across all age groups.
- In every age cohort, participation drops during midterm election years compared to presidential election years.

Part C (1 point):
- 1 point for drawing an accurate conclusion connecting campaign resource allocation to the data.
- Acceptable responses include:
- Midterm candidates are likely to direct more advertising and get-out-the-vote (GOTV) funding toward voters aged 45 and older because they represent the highest-propensity voting bloc in non-presidential cycles.
- Candidates may design policy platforms that prioritize issues favored by older citizens (e.g., healthcare/entitlements) over youth issues to appeal to the demographic most likely to vote in midterms.

Part D (1 point):
- 1 point for explaining how political efficacy accounts for the observed age disparity in turnout.
- Acceptable responses include:
- Older voters generally possess higher political efficacy because they perceive direct stakes in government policies (e.g., pensions/healthcare), reinforcing their belief that voting influences outcomes, whereas younger voters often feel alienated or believe their votes do not produce significant policy changes.
- High political efficacy among senior citizens motivates regular voting habits, while lower political efficacy among youth diminishes their motivation to participate at the ballot box.

A. The constitutional clause at issue in both Tinker v. Des Moines and Morse v. Frederick is the Freedom of Speech Clause of the First Amendment (incorporated to the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment).

B. In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), students wore black armbands to school to silently protest the Vietnam War. Because this symbolic expression was non-disruptive, purely political, and did not materially disrupt the learning environment or infringe upon the rights of others, the Supreme Court ruled that students do not lose their constitutional rights to freedom of speech at the schoolhouse gate.
In contrast, in Morse v. Frederick (2007), a student displayed a banner that was reasonably interpreted as advocating illegal substance abuse ("BONG HiTS 4 JESUS") during a school-supervised activity. The Court held that school officials have a compelling interest in deterring illegal drug use among minors, allowing them to restrict student speech that promotes drug use even if it does not create an immediate material disruption.

C. The ruling in Morse v. Frederick reflects the enduring tension between protecting individual civil liberties (freedom of expression under the First Amendment) and preserving public order/authority (the administrative duty of public schools to maintain a safe, disciplined educational environment free from illegal drug advocacy). The Court determined that within a public school context, the governmental mandate to safeguard students' health and safety justifies placing reasonable boundaries on individual expressive freedoms.

Part A (1 point total):
- 1 point for correctly identifying the Freedom of Speech Clause (or Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment).
[Reject: General 'First Amendment' without mentioning speech/expression, Due Process Clause alone, or Establishment Clause].

Part B (2 points total):
- 1 point for accurately describing the facts or holding of the required Supreme Court case (Tinker v. Des Moines).
* Example: In Tinker, students wore armbands in silent political protest against the Vietnam War, and the Court held that student speech is protected unless it materially and substantially disrupts the school environment.
- 1 point for explaining how the differing facts in Tinker v. Des Moines and Morse v. Frederick led to different holdings.
* Example: While Tinker involved peaceful, non-disruptive political expression that schools could not censor without evidence of substantial disruption, Morse involved speech promoting illicit drug use at a school-sanctioned event, which the Court held schools can restrict due to the special compelling interest in preventing student drug abuse.

Part C (1 point total):
- 1 point for explaining how the ruling in Morse v. Frederick illustrates the balance or tension between individual rights and governmental authority/order.
* Acceptable explanations must connect the Court's limitation on individual student expression to the legitimate authority of the state/school to enforce disciplinary rules, ensure student safety, and curb illegal activity.

### Model Response (Sample Position: Weakens Constitutional Governance)

Thesis:
The expansion of unilateral presidential power weakens constitutional governance because it circumvents the deliberative legislative process intended to reflect broad public consensus and disrupts the constitutional balance of checks and balances necessary to prevent tyranny.

Evidence 1 (Foundational Document):
In Federalist No. 51, James Madison argues that government must be structured so that "ambition must be made to counteract ambition," creating a system where separate branches check each other's overreach to preserve liberty. When a president relies extensively on unilateral instruments like executive orders to enact major domestic policies without congressional approval, it bypasses the legislative veto and oversight mechanisms envisioned by Madison, thereby concentrating disproportionate authority in a single branch.

Evidence 2 (Course Concept/Additional Document):
Furthermore, the principle of separation of powers established in the Constitution designates Congress as the primary lawmaking authority under Article I. Historical precedents such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) demonstrate that when presidents issue unilateral directives that conflict with the express or implied will of Congress, it erodes democratic accountability and creates unpredictable policy fluctuations with each changing administration.

Reasoning:
This evidence demonstrates that constitutional governance relies fundamentally on inter-branch competition and consensus-building. When the executive branch unilaterally enacts directives, it removes the necessary friction designed to ensure laws are thoroughly debated, ultimately degrading the institutional checks that safeguard individual liberty.

Alternative Perspective and Rebuttal:
Some may argue that expanding unilateral executive power strengthens governance by providing the energy, decisiveness, and dispatch championed in Federalist No. 70, allowing the federal government to respond quickly during national crises and gridlock. However, while swift action is vital in defense and foreign policy, expanding this power into ordinary domestic policymaking undermines the long-term stability and legitimacy of federal laws, replacing enduring statutory frameworks with reversible executive fiats.

### 6-Point Analytic Scoring Rubric

#### Row A: Claim / Thesis (0–1 point)
- 1 pt: Responds to the prompt with a defensible claim or thesis that establishes a clear line of reasoning (e.g., asserts that unilateral power weakens governance because it bypasses legislative deliberation and violates separation of powers, OR strengthens governance by ensuring energetic execution during periods of legislative gridlock).
- 0 pts: Restates the prompt, makes an indefensible claim, or offers a claim without a line of reasoning.

#### Row B: Evidence (0–3 points)
- 3 pts: Uses TWO pieces of specific and relevant evidence to support the claim/thesis; at least ONE piece of evidence is from the provided list (Federalist No. 70, Federalist No. 51, or Article II).
- 2 pts: Uses ONE piece of specific and relevant evidence to support the claim/thesis OR provides TWO pieces of relevant evidence that do not fully support the thesis.
- 1 pt: Provides ONE piece of evidence relevant to the topic.
- 0 pts: Provides no accurate or relevant evidence.

#### Row C: Reasoning (0–1 point)
- 1 pt: Explains the logical relationship between the evidence provided and the claim/thesis (e.g., explains how checks and balances prevent authoritarian overreach, or how energy in the executive allows policy delivery).
- 0 pts: Provides evidence without explaining how it connects to the thesis or merely repeats the thesis.

#### Row D: Alternative Perspective / Counterargument (0–1 point)
- 1 pt: Describes an opposing or alternative perspective AND provides a valid rebuttal or refutation.
- 0 pts: Fails to describe an alternative viewpoint, describes one without offering a rebuttal/refutation, or simply contradicts the original thesis without argumentation.