Image Descriptions

Preface

Image 1 (Image 1.13)

A chart showing the political affiliations of young Americans. Under the question “When it comes to voting, with which party do you consider yourself to be affiliated?” 40% responded “Democrat” with 22% as “Strong Democrat” and 18% as “not a strong Democrat”. 37% responded “Independent”, with 10% as “Leans Democrat”, 21% as “does not lean either way”, and 5% as “leans Republican”. 21% responded “Republican” with 10% as “not a strong Republican”, and 11% as “Strong Republican”. Under the question “When it comes to most political issues, do you think of yourself as a…?” 32% responded “liberal”, 9% responded “moderate-leaning liberal”, 27% responded “moderate”, 8% responded “moderate-leaning conservative”, and 24% responded “conservative”. Young Americans are 40% Democrat, 37% Independent, and 21% Republican. Ideologically, 41% are liberal, 27% moderate, and 32% conservative.

Image 2

A series of three pie charts titled “U.S. 117th Congress by Gender, Race, and Religion”. The leftmost pie chart shows two slices, one labeled “Male 73.3%” and one labeled “Female 26.7%””. The middle pie chart shows two slices, one labeled “White 76.1%” and one labeled “Black 11%, Hispanic 8.6%, “Asian American 3.2%, and Native American 1.1%”. The rightmost pie chart shows two slices, one labeled “Christian 88.1%” and one labeled “Jewish 6.2%, Buddhist 0.4%, Muslin 0.6%, Hindu 0.4%, Unitarian Universalist 0.6%, Unaffiliated 0.2%, Don’t know/refused 3.4%”. At the bottom of the charts, sources are listed: Pew Research Center. Blazina, Carrie and Drew Desilver. “A Record Number of Women Are Serving in the 117th Congress.” January 15, 2021. Pew Research Center. Schaeffer, Katherine. “Racial, Ethnic Diversity Increases Yet Again with the 117th Congress.” January 28, 2021. Pew Research Center. “Faith on the Hill: The Religious Composition of the 117th Congress.” January 4, 2021.

Image 3 

A chart titled “Appointments of the Current Supreme Court Justices”. A horizontal timeline runs through the center of the chart. Starting from the left, the first point marked on the line is labeled “Clarence Thomas, Appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1991”. The label is colored red to indicate conservative. The second point is labeled “Stephen Breyer, Appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994”. The label is colored blue to indicate liberal. The third point is labeled “John Roberts (Chief), Appointed by George W. Bush in 2005”. The label is colored red to indicate conservative. The fourth point is labeled “Samuel Alito, Appointed by George W. Bush in 2006”. The label is colored red to indicate conservative. The fifth point is labeled “Sonia Sotomayor, Appointed by Barack Obama in 2009”. The label is colored blue to indicate liberal. The sixth point is labeled “Elena Kagan, Appointed by Barack Obama in 2010”. The label is colored blue to indicate liberal. The seventh point is labeled “Neil Gorsuch, Appointed by Donald Trump in 2017”. The label is colored red to indicate conservative. The eighth point is labeled “Brett Kavanaugh, Appointed by Donald Trump in 2018”. The label is colored red to indicate conservative. The ninth point is labeled “Amy Coney Barrett, Appointed by Donald Trump in 2020”. The label is colored red to indicate conservative.

Chapter 1: American Government and Civic Engagement

Figure 1.3

A chart showing examples of different types of goods. The chart is arranged similarly to a table with two columns and three rows. The first column is labeled “Excludable: Not everyone has access to these goods. Some will be excluded from having them, often because only those who pay for the good or service may use it”. Under the first column are “Private Goods: cell phones, automobiles, homes” and “Toll Goods: Cable TV, Private school education, Turnpikes”. The second column is labeled “Non-excludable: All people have access to these goods. No one may be excluded. Anyone may use the good or service, usually without charge”. Under the second column are “Common Goods: Fish in the ocean, fresh water” and “Public Goods: Public education, Mail service, National security”. Private Good and Common Goods are also labeled “Rivalrous: Only one person can use the good or service at any given time”. Toll Goods and Public Goods are also labeled “Non-rivalrous: Many people can use the same good or service at the same time”. At the bottom of the chart, a source is listed: “John L Mikesell, 2014. Fiscal Administration: Analysis and Applications for the Public Sector, 9th ed. Boston: Wadsworth”.

Figure 1.6

A chart showing an inset of the east coast of the United States with the locations of the seven Ivy League universities labeled: “Cornell”, “Dartmouth”, “Harvard”, “Brown”, “Yale”, “Columbia”, “Princeton”, and “Penn”. The photographs of presidents who graduated from Ivy League universities are shown to the right. George W. Bush and Barak Obama are shown for Harvard. George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush are shown for Yale. Barak Obama is shown for Columbia. Donald Trump is shown for Penn.

Chapter 2: The Constitution and Its Origins

Image 2.7

An infographic shows a comparison between the Virginia Plan on the left and the New Jersey Plan on the right. It depicts the type of legislature, representation, and role of the national government for each plan. In the Virginia Plan, the legislature is bicameral, representation is population based with a higher population yielding more representation, and the role of national government is to legislate for states and veto state law. In the New Jersey Plan, the legislature is unicameral, representation is state based with each state equally represented, and the role of national government is to provide defense but not override state authority.

Image 2.8

A graphical two boxes (Proposal 1 on the left and Proposal 2 on the right) with an arrow from each box that points downward to one box (Three-fifths Compromise) underneath the two top boxes. In Proposal 1, 5 citizens equal 5 votes, and 5 enslaved persons equal 5 votes. In Proposal 2, 5 citizens equal 5 votes, and 5 enslaved persons equal 0 votes. In the Three-Fifths Compromise, 5 citizens equal 5 votes, and 5 enslaved persons equal 3 votes.

Image 2.9

An infographic includes three boxes with Executive, Judicial, and Legislative headings. The powers listed for the executive branch are: President is commander-in0chief of the nation’s armed forces; President is responsible for conducting foreign affairs; President appoints federal judges, ambassadors, and the heads of executive departments; President may grant pardons to those who have broken federal laws; President has the power to veto legislation passed by Congress. The powers listed for the judicial branch are: Supreme Court hears cases involving federal law and is the nation’s final court of appeal; Supreme Court has the power to declare laws and actions by the executive branch unconstitutional; Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over impeachment trials. The powers listed for the legislative branch are: Congress has the power to pass legislation; Congress may declare war; Senate has the power to ratify treaties signed by the president; Senate must give its consent to the president’s appointment of federal judges, ambassadors, and the heads of executive departments; Congress may impeach the president and remove the president from office; Congress may establish the number of Supreme Court justices and regular the Court’s jurisdiction.

Image 2.11

A newspaper illustration showing five pillars standing upright representing Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut. A sixth pillar representing Massachusetts is broken apart from the others and falling over) in image A. A similar newspaper illustration showing the six pillars all standing upright in image B.

Image 2.12

This timeline includes twelve states with the dates that each ratified the Constitution. Delaware ratified on December 7, 1787; Pennsylvania ratified on December 12, 1787; New Jersey ratified on December 18, 1787; Georgia ratified on December 31, 1787; Connecticut ratified on January 9, 1788; Massachusetts ratified on February 6, 1788; Maryland ratified on April 26, 1788; South Carolina ratified on May 23, 1788; New Hampshire ratified on June 21, 1788; Virginia ratified on June 25, 1788; New York ratified on July 26, 1788; North Carolina ratified on November 21, 1789; and Rhode Island ratified on May 29, 1790.

Chapter 3: American Federalism

Image 3.1

A series of postcards from different states, with the slogan “Greetings From” above each state’s name. Iconic images and scenery decorates each states’ postcard. States includes are Virginia, South Carolina, Utah, Oklahoma, Arizona, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Georgia, Maine, Delaware, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.

Image 3.2

A flow chart depicts the three general systems of government: the unitary system, the federation, and the confederation. The unitary system flowchart starts with the National Government, which flows down to the States. Below the chart, it says, “Authority is concentrated in the central government. Examples: United Kingdom, Japan, Sweden.” The Federation flow chart starts with the People on top. The flow branches down and splits between two boxes; the states, and the National Government. Below this chart, it says, “Authority is divided between central and state governments and is derived from the people. Examples: Canada, India, United States under the Constitution”. The Confederation flow chart starts with the States on top, with an arrow flowing down to the National Government. Under this chart, it says “Authority is concentrated in states. Example: United States under the Articles of Confederation”.

Image 3.3

A chart lists the powers of the federal government, the state government, and the concurrent powers they share. Under the Federal Government, the enumerated powers listed are coin money, regulate interstate and foreign commerce, conduct foreign affairs, establish rules of naturalization, punish counterfeiting, establish copyright/patent laws, regulate postal system, establish courts inferior to Supreme court, declare war, raise and support armies, make all laws “necessary and proper” to carry out responsibilities. The powers denied under the federal government are tax state exports, change state boundaries, and violate the Bill of Rights. Under the State Government, the reserved powers listed are regulate intrastate commerce, conduct elections, provide for public health, safety, welfare, and morals, establish local governments, maintain militia (National Guard), and ratify amendments to the constitution. Under powers denied, the chart lists tax imports and exports, coin money, enter into treaties, impair obligation of contracts, abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens or deny due process and equal protection of the laws. Under concurrent powers, the chart lists levy and collect taxes, borrow money, make and enforce laws, establish courts, charter banks and corporations, and take property for public purpose with just compensation (eminent domain).

Image 3.4

Three pie charts show Federal Government Revenue Sources in 2020, State Government Revenue Sources in 2018, and Local Government Revenue Sources in 2018. The Federal Government revenue sources in 2020 are split as follows: individual income taxes, 47%; payroll taxes, 38%; Corporate taxes, 6%; Excise taxes, 3%; other, 6%. State Government Revenue sources in 2018 are split as follows: Taxes, 39%; Federal support, 25%; Service charges, 15%; Other, 21%. A box appended to the taxes share of the state revenue is titled “Share of state taxes”. It lists property tax, 2%; sales tax, 47%; individual income tax, 38%. The Local Government Revenue sources in 2018 are split as follows: Taxes, 37 %; Federal and state support, 30%; Service charges, 20%; other, 13%. A box appended to the taxes share of the local government revenue is titled “share of local taxes”. It lists property tax, 72%; sales tax, 18%; individual income tax, 5%. At the bottom of the chart, the sources of information are listed: Congressional Budget Office; Office of Management and Budget. “Revenues, by Major Source, Since 1962.” The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2021 to 2031. February 2021. Office of Management and Budget, Table 2.2: “Percent Composition of Receipts by Source, 1934–2025.” whitehouse.gov. 2021. U.S. Census Bureau. “Table 1: State and Local Government Finances by Level of Government and by State, 2018.” 2018 Annual Surveys of State and Local Governments. 2018.

Image 3.5

A chart shows the percent of each state’s tax revenue coming from fuel taxis in 2007 and 2019. Starting with the state earning the most from fuel taxes, each state earned the following: Starting with the state earning the most from fuel taxes, each state earned the following: South Dakota earned 9.8% in 2007 and 9.8% in 2019. Montana earned 9.1% in 2007 and 8.2% in 2019. Pennsylvania earned 7% in 2007 and 7.8% in 2019. Idaho earned 6.6% in 2007 and 7.7% in 2019. West Virginia earned 7.4% in 2007 and 7.6% in 2019. Georgia earned 5.8% in 2007 and 7.4% in 2019. North Carolina earned 7% in 2007, and 7.2% in 2019. Tennessee earned 7.5% in 2007 and 7.1% in 2019. Nebraska earned 7.9% in 2007 and 6.8% in 2019. Florida earned 5.8% in 2007 and 6.5% in 2019. Ohio earned 6.7% in 2007 and 6.5% in 2019. South Carolina earned 6.2% in 2007 and 6.5% in 2019. Indiana earned 6.3% in 2007 and 6.4% in 2019. Iowa earned 7% in 2007 and 6.3% in 2019. New Hampshire earned 5.8% in 2007 and 6.2% in 2019. Washington earned 6.4% in 2007 and 6.1% in 2019. Texas earned 7.6% in 2007 and 5.9% in 2019. Utah earned 6.4% in 2007 and 5.8% in 2019. Louisiana earned 5.5% in 2007 and 5.7% in 2019. Wyoming earned 3.5% in 2007 and 5.7% in 2019. Wisconsin earned 7% in 2007 and 5.6% in 2019. Kentucky earned 5.7% in 2007 and 5.5% in 2019. Maine earned 6.3% in 2007 and 5.5% in 2019. Missouri earned 7% in 2007 and 5.5% in 2019. Mississippi earned 7% in 2007 and 5.4% in 2019. Oklahoma earned 4.8% in 2007 and 5.3% in 2019. Alabama earned 6.5% in 2007 and 5.2% in 2019. Arizona earned 5.2% in 2007 and 4.9% in 2019. Arkansas earned 6.4% in 2007 and 4.9% in 2019. Michigan earned 4.3% in 2007 and 4.9% in 2019. Maryland earned 5% in 2007 and 4.8% in 2019. Kansas earned 6.3% in 2007 and 4.6% in 2019. Colorado earned 7.4% in 2007 and 4.3% in 2019. Oregon earned 5.4% in 2007 and 4.2% in 2019. California earned 3% in 2007 and 4.0% in 2019. North Dakota earned 7.9% in 2007 and 4.0% in 2019. Virginia earned 5% in 2007 and 4.0% in 2019. Nevada earned 5.3% in 2007 and 3.6% in 2019. Vermont earned 3.3% in 2007 and 3.6% on 2019. Minnesota earned 3.5% in 2007 and 3.3% in 2019. New Mexico earned 4.4% in 2007 and 3.2% in 2019. Delaware earned 4% in 2007 and 3.1% in 2019. Illinois earned 4.9% in 2007 and 3.0% in 2019. Alaska earned 1.2% in 2007 and 2.6% in 2019. Connecticut earned 2.6% in 2019. Massachusetts earned 3.2% in 2007 and 2.4% in 2019. Rhode Island earned 4.9% in 2007 and 2.1% in 2019. New York earned 0.8% in 2007 and 2.0% in 2019. New Jersey earned 2% in 2007 and 1.3% in 2019. Hawaii earned 1.8% in 2007 and 1.1% in 2019.

Image 3.7

This chart lists State and Local Government Expenditures in 2018. On utilities, state expenditures were around 31 million dollars while local expenditures were around 208 million dollars. Judicial state and local expenditures were both around 24 million dollars. State spending on solid waste is 1, while local spending is around 25 million dollars. State spending on sewerage is 1, while local spending is around 57 million dollars. Housing expenditures are about 9 million by the state and 45 million by local government. Corrections expenditures are around 51 million by the state and 31 million by the local government. Fire expenditures are 0 in state and around 52 million by the local government. Police expenditures are around 16 million by the state and around 103 million by the local government. Highway expenditures are around 112 million by the state and 75 million by the local government. Public welfare expenditures are around 659 million dollars by the state and around 59 million dollars by the local government. K-12 education expenditures are around 7 million dollars by the state and around 681 million dollars by the local government. Higher education expenditures are around 258 million dollars by the state and around 43 million dollars by the local government.

Image 3.9

An illustration of a large fly with a man’s face. The fly is stuck in a web labeled “The Law”. In the center of the web is a spider labeled “Interstate Commerce Commission”. Under the image, a caption states “Will you walk into my parlor?” The Puck magazine title runs across the top of the image. In image B, President William Howard Taft stands behind his attorney general George W. Wickersham as Wickersham tries to beat a “Monopoly”, depicted as a round bottomed statue of a top hat and tuxedo wearing man, with a stick labeled “Sherman Law”. The caption under the illustration says “Why doesn’t it stay down when I hit it?”

Image 3.11

Federalism as two different types of cake. The first is labeled “Dual Federalism: Layer Cake Federalism”. The cake has three clearly defined horizontal layers. A label states “programs and authority are clearly divided among the national, state, and local governments”. The second cake is labeled “Cooperative Federalism: Marble Cake Federalism”. The cake has layers that are all swirled together instead of being cleanly defined by layers. A label states “programs and authority are mixed among the national, state, and local governments”.

Image 3.13

These two graphs show the federal grants to the state and local government from 1960-2018. The first graph in the shape of a thermometer shows the increase of federal grants to state and local governments over time from 1960 to 2018, with these years and amounts: 1960 $7 million, 1970 $24 million, 1980 $91 million, 1990 $135 million, 2000 $286 million, 2005 $428 million, 2010 $608 million, 2015 $624 million, 2018 $697 million. The pie chart next to this graph shows the breakdown of the 2018 Federal grant of $697 million dollars. Health received 60%, income security received 16%, transportation received 9%, Education, training, employment and social services received 9%, community and regional development received 3%. Other departments had received around 3%. At the bottom of the chart, a source is cited: “Congressional Research Service. Table 2 in Federal Grants to State and Local Governments: A Historic Perspective on Contemporary Issues. May 22, 2019.

Image 3.17

This graph shows the states which practiced marriage equality in 2015, and its growth since 2009. States labeled as practicing marriage equality in 2015 are Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia, Virginia, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington DC, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Maine. The states that have banned it are North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, and Florida. Alabama is labeled as disputed on this map. Below this graph are four smaller graphs, showing the spread of marriage equality across the US since 2009. The first graph shows only a few states like Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa having marriage equality in 2009, with equality spreading to New York, New Hampshire, and Washington DC in 2011. 2013 shows a wider spread across the east to Maine, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Hawaii, California, and Washington.

Chapter 4: Civil Liberties

Image 4.5

A Venn Diagram labeled “Categories of Rights and Protections”. The top circle of the diagram is labeled “Criminal”, the circle on the left is labeled “Procedural”, and the circle on the right is labeled “Individual Freedoms”. The values “Fifth Amendment” and “Sixth Amendment” are shown in the center of the diagram where all three circles overlap. The values “Fourth Amendment” and “Tenth Amendment” are shown in the circle on the left labeled “Procedural”. The values “First Amendment”, “Seventh Amendment”, and “Eighth Amendment” are shown at the bottom of the diagram where the circles labeled “Procedural” and “Individual Freedoms” overlap. The values “Second Amendment”, “Third Amendment”, and “Ninth Amendment” are shown in the circle on the right labeled “Individual Freedoms”.

Image 4.17

A diagram is titled “Rate of Execution in the Countries with the Most Executions, 2007–2019”. It lists the following information for each country: number of annual executions on average, and number of annual executions per capita. Iran; 399.2; 0.000482%. Saudi Arabia; 112.5; 0.000328%. Iraq; 77.4; 0.000197%. China; 1720-2400; 0.000129-0.000180% (estimate) . North Korea; 27.8; 0.000108% (estimate). Somalia; 14.6; 0.000095%. Yemen; 19.5; 0.000067%. Libya; 3.0; 0.000044% (estimate). Pakistan; 56.1; 0.000026%. Vietnam; 21.4; 0.000022% (estimate). Egypt; 20.7; 0.000021%. United States; 35.0; 0.000011%. At the bottom, a source is provided: Amnesty International. “Death Sentences and Executions, 2007–2019.” 2019.

Chapter 5: Civil Rights

Image 5.3

A sketch of a building on fire. Several people are standing outside the building. Some of the people are armed. At the bottom of the image reads “Scenes in Memphis, Tennessee, during the riot—burning a freedmen’s school-house. [Sketched by A. R. W.]”.

Image 5.5

A cartoon. In the foreground a person dressed in a top hat and a coat with tails writes on the wall of a building. The writing reads “Eddikazhun Qualifukazhun. The blakman orter be eddikated arofe he kin vote with us wites. Mr. Solid South”. In the background is a seated person facing the person who is writing.

Image 5.14

A map of the United States titled “State Support of the Equal Rights Amendment”. States marked as “Ratified” are Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont. States marked as “Ratified, then rescinded” are Idaho, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kentucky, and Tennessee. States marked as “Ratified in one house of legislature” are Nevada, Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina. States marked as “Not ratified” are Utah, Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia.

Image 5.15

A map of the United States showing the southeast quarter of the country. On the map the paths of Indian Removal are shown. For “Cherokee” a path is drawn from a region labeled “Tribal territory Cherokee 1835” in the northwest corner of Georgia to a region labeled “Reservation” in “Unorganized Territory” to the west of Missouri. For “Chickasaw” a path is drawn from a region labeled “Tribal territory Chickasaw 1832” in the north half of Mississippi to a region labeled “Reservation” in “Unorganized Territory” to the west of Arkansas Territory. For “Choctaw” a path is drawn from a region labeled “Tribal territory Choctaw 1830” in the lower north half of Mississippi to a region labeled “Reservation” in “Unorganized Territory” to the west of Arkansas Territory. For “Creek” a path is drawn from a region labeled “Tribal territory Creek 1832” in the northeast of Alabama to a region labeled “Reservation” in “Unorganized Territory” to the west of Arkansas Territory. For “Seminole” a path is drawn from a region labeled “Tribal territory Seminole 1832-33” in the south of Florida Territory to a region labeled “Reservation” in “Unorganized Territory” to the west of Arkansas Territory.

Image 5.22

A map of North Carolina titled “Peak of Eugenic Program in North Carolina, July 1946-June 1968”. A legend reads “Sterilizations performed by county” and marks the counties into six categories. Seven counties are marked “10 or less”. Twenty-six counties are marked “11-29”. Twenty-five counties are marked “30-49”. Twenty-seven counties are marked “50-99”. Eleven counties are marked “100-399”. One county is marked “Over 400”.

Chapter 6: The Politics of Public Opinion

Image 6.3

Chart with widening partisan differences in political values between 1987 and 2012. In the center of the chart is a vertical axis line. On the right side of the line are the years 1987 through 2012 marked with ticks. On the left side of the line are percentages, labeled “the percentage-point differences between Republicans and Democrats on questions about values”.

Image 6.4

Chart with widening partisan differences in political values between 1987 and 2012. In the center of the chart is a vertical axis line. On the right side of the line are the years 1987 through 2012 marked with ticks. On the left side of the line are percentages, labeled “the percentage-point differences between Republicans and Democrats on questions about values”.

Image 6.6

A political spectrum shows the political stance from the left wing to the right wing. Starting in the left wing, which is labeled “equality in society,” the spectrum moves right from “communism” to “socialism” to “liberal.” The middle of the spectrum is labeled “center.” Moving toward the right wing, it starts at “conservative” to “authoritarianism” to “fascism.” The right wing is labeled “control of society.”

Image 6.7

A series of bar graphs showing differences in public opinion. The first graph asks “which statement comes closer to your view of the patriot act?”. Those who responded that they viewed it as “a necessary tool that helps government find terrorists” aligned to the following parties: 57% of republicans, 35% of democrats, and 37% of independents. Those who responded that “it goes too far and threatens to civil liberties” aligned as follows: 22% of republicans, 40% of democrats, and 42% of independents. The heading for the remaining graphs asks “Would you increase, decrease, or keep spending the same for…?”. When asked about health care, 58% of democrats would increase, and 35% would keep it the same; for republicans, 16% would increase, 40% would keep it the same, and 44% would decrease; for independents, 34% would increase, 43% would keep it the same, and 23% would decrease. When asked about unemployment assistance, 9% of republicans would increase, 35% of republicans would keep it the same, and 56% would decrease; for democrats, 41% would increase, 46% would keep it the same, and 13% would decrease; for independents, 20% would increase, 48% would keep it the same, and 32% would decrease. When asked about aid to needy in the U.S., 9% of republicans would increase, 42% would keep it the same, and 49% would decrease; for democrats, 39% would increase, 52% would keep it the same, and 9% would decrease; for independents, 28% would increase, 47% would keep it the same, 25% would decrease. When asked about the minimum wage, 50% of republicans would increase, 48% would keep it the same, and 2% would decrease; for democrats, 91% would increase, and 9% would keep it the same; for independents, 68% would increase, and 30% would keep it the same. When asked about environmental protection, 12% of republicans would increase, 48% would keep it the same, and 40% would decrease; for democrats, 52% would increase, 40% would keep it the same, and 8% would decrease; for independents, 31% would increase, 48% would keep it the same, and 21% would decrease. When asked about scientific research, 22% of republicans would increase, 46% would keep it the same, and 32% would decrease; for democrats, 47% would increase, 43% would keep it the same, and 10% would decrease; and for independents, 38% would increase, 41% would keep it the same., and 21% would decrease. At the bottom of the chart, a source is cited: ““Patriot Act”: Pew Research Center. “Public Remains Divided Over the Patriot Act.” February 15, 2011. “Affordable Care Act”: Pew Research Center. “ACA Remains Deeply Partisan; Public Divided Over Future of Law.” February 22, 2015. Source “Spending”: “Spending Cuts Divide Parties.” Pew Research Center. February 2013. “In U.S., 71% Back Raising Minimum Wage.” Gallup, Inc. “Support for raising U.S. Federal Minimum Wage to $9 per Hour.” March 2013.”

Image 6-11

Image 6.13

The first chart shows the views on same sex marriage between 2001 and 2019. The line for those who oppose same sex marriage starts around 57% in 2001, slowly rising to 60% in 2004. It dips sharply until 2005 when it hits 53%. It rises again until it reaches 55% in 2006, then begins falling until 2008 when it hits 50%. It goes back up to 54% in 2009, then descends until it hits 32% in 2017. In 2019 it ends at 31%. The line for those who favor same sex marriage starts out around 35% in 2001 and falls until it hits 30% in 2004. It rises until it hits 36% in 2005, then drops slightly in 2006 to 35%. It begins to rise and hits 39% in 2008. It falls again in 2009, hitting 36%. It rises gradually from then on, until reaching 62% in 2017. In 2019 it ends at 61%. The second chart shows views on immigration from 1994 to 2019. The line representing those who think immigrants are a burden on our country starts at 63%.This line falls steadily until it hits 38% in 2000. It begins a slow rise until it hits 44% in 2003. It levels out until 2005, when it spikes up to 53% in 2006. It falls sharply down to 40% in 2007, and stays steady until 2009, when another sharp spike puts it back to 50% in 2010. After this spike, the line declines, leveling out at 35% in 2013 and 2014, until reaching 27% in 2016. In 2017 the line has decreased to 26% and it ends in 2019 at 28%. The line representing those who think immigrants strengthen our country begins at 30%. It slowly rises, reaching a peak at 50% in 2000. It begins a slow decline until leveling out to 45% in 2004 and 2005. It falls to 40% in 2006, before rising again to 45% in 2009. It falls slightly to 44% in 2010, then begins to rise again until reaching 63% in 2016. At 2017 the line is at 65% and it ends in 2019 at 62%. At the bottom of the chart, sources are cited: Pew Research Center, “Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage.” May 14, 2019. Pew Research Center. “Increasingly, Immigrants Seen as Strengthening America.” January 31, 2019.

Image 6.14

Chart shows President Obama’s job approval ratings from 2009 to 2017. When his Presidency begins on January 2009, he is at around 65%. When the Affordable Care Act is passed in March 2010, his approval rating dropped to around 50%. When Osama bin Laden was killed, his approval ratings went up slightly to around 54%. After falling to around 40%, his approval rating begins to rise, until his reelection on November 2012 when it was at around 53%. It rises slightly, peaking around 56%, then slowly declining. When the budget crises hits in October 2013, Obama’s approval rating is around 45%, hitting a low of about 40% around 2014. It then continues to gradually rise ending with a final approval in January 2018 of 55%. At the bottom of the chart, a source is cited: “Gallup. “President Approval Ratings, Barack Obama.” January 2019.”

Image 6.15

Chart shows congressional job approval ratings from 1974 to 2015. Starting around 30% in 1974, it rises slightly to 32% in 1975 before dipping to 25% in 1976. After the dip, it spikes again to35% in 1977, before falling again to 20% in 1979. It rises to 38% in 1981, then falls again in 1982 to 30 %. There is a slow increase to 41% in 1986, where it levels out until 1988, when it begins to drop until it reaches 30% in 1990. It rebounds slightly to 31% in 1991, but falls drastically to 20% in 1992. A sharp increase in 1993 to 25% leads to a steady increase of approval ratings until 200 when it reaches 50%. A drastic spike in 2001 shoots approval ratings up to 82%, and a sharp decline lands approval ratings back at 50% by 2003. It levels off for a year, before falling again to 28% in 2006. A small spike in 2007puts it at 35%, before it falls down to 20% in 2009. There is another small increase to 24% in 2010, then another decrease to 10% in 2013. The chart shows an approval rating at 15% in 2015. In 2016 there are a series of ups and downs with a slight overall increase to around 18-19% by the end of 2016. In 2017, there is a spike to 28% in February, which evens out to around 20% until mid-2017, and dips in November 2017 to around 13%. In 2019, the range of approval varies from the mid-20%s in the early and late parts of the year with a dip to 17% midyear. 2020 sees a marked spike to 30-31% in April and May, dropping back to the high teens late in the year, and starting to climb again in 2021 with rates between 25 and 36% for the first half of 2021. At the bottom of the chart, a source is cited: “Gallup. “Congress and the Public.” June 18, 2021.

Chapter 7: Voting and Elections

Image 7.6

Percent of the population that votes in the United States. The first box is labeled “Total population = 329,484,123”. Within that box is a box labeled “Voting-age population (VAP) = 257,605,088”. Within that box is a box labeled “Voting-eligible population (VEP) = 239,247,182, 62% of voting-age population (VAP) voted”. Within that box is a box labeled “Registered Voters = 206,557,583 (estimated), 67% of voting-eligible population (VEP) voted”. Within that box is a box labeled “Votes in 2020 election = 159,690,457, 77% of registered voters voted

Image 7.7

Left is John McCain speaking to a group of people. Several people are holding signs that read “Dividedwefall.org AARP”. Right is a bar graph titled “Difference in Voter Registration and Voting between Age Groups”. Under the label “Registered”, “Ages 18 – 24” is approximately 50%, and “Ages 65 – 74” is approximately 75%”. Under the label “Voted”, “Ages 18 – 28” is approximately 40%” and “Ages 65 – 74” is approximately 75%. A source at the bottom of the graph reads “Census Bureau. “Table A-1: Reported Voting and Registration, by Race, Hispanic Origin, Sex, and Age Groups: November 1964 to 2018.”

Image 7.8

A line graph titled “Voting Rates Over Time for the Voting-Age Population: 1964-2016. The x-axis starts in 1964 and marks every 4 years until 2016. The y-axis goes from 30 to 80 percent. The line labeled “18 to 24 years” starts at 50.9% in 1964, drops steadily to around 40% in 1980, increases to around 43% in 1984, decreases to around 37% in 1988, increases to around 44% in 1992, decreases to around 30% in 1996 and stays there through 2000, increases to around 43% in 2004, then around 45% in 2008, then decreases to 38% in 2012, and ends in 2016 at 39.4%. The line labeled “25 to 44 years” starts at 69% in 1964, then drops steadily to around 57% in 1976 and stays there through 1984, decreases to around 55% in 1988, increases to around 58% in 1992, decreases to around 50% in 1996, then increases steadily to around 55% in 2004 and stays there through 2008, then decreases to 49.5% in 2012, and ends in 2016 at 49.0%. The line labeled “45 to 64 years” starts at 75.9% in 1964, decreases steadily to around 68% in 1976 and stays around there until 1992, decreases to around 63% in 1996 and stays there through 2000,, increases to around 68% in 2004, then decreases steadily to 63.4% in 2012, and ends in 2016 at 61.7%. The line labeled “65 years and older” starts at 66.3% in 1964, decreases steadily to around 63% in 1976, increases steadily to around 69% in 1992, decreases to around 67% in 1996, increases steadily to around 68% in 2004, decreases to around 67% in 2008, increases to 69.7% in 2012, and ends in 2016 at 68.4%. At the bottom of the graph a source is listed: “U. S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Select Years”.”

Image 7.11

Bar graphs titled “Seekers of Elected Office by Demographic”. The first bar graph is titled “Gender”. Under the label “General public”, approximately 49% are men and approximately 51% are women. Under the label “Sough Elected Office”, approximately 75% are men and approximately 25% are women. The second bar graph is titled “Race”. Under the label “General public”, approximately 66% are White, 15% are Hispanic, and 12% are Black. Under the label “Sough Elected Office”, approximately 82% are White, 6% are Hispanic, and 5% are Black. The third bar graph is titled “Education”. Under the label “General public”, approximately 42% have high school or less, 31% have some college, 17% are college graduates, and 10% have some post-graduate education. Under the label “Sought Elected Office”, approximately 19% have high school or less, 36% have some college, 29% are college graduates, and 16% have some post-graduate education. At the bottom of the graphs, a source is listed: “2014 Political Polarization in the American Public; general public demographic data from 2012 American Community Survey (1% IPUMS)”.

Image 7.12

A table titled “Contribution Limits for 2021-2022 Federal Elections”. The rows are labeled “Donors” and the columns are labeled “Recipients”. Under the column “Candidate Committee” are the values “Individual: $2,900* per election”, “Candidate Committee: $2,000 per election”, “PAC-multicandidate: $5,000 per election”, “PAC-Nonmulticandidate: $2,900 per election, “State/District/Local Party Committee: $5,000 per election (combined)”, and “National Party Committee: $5,000 per election (3)”. Under the column “PAC (1) (SSF and Nonconnected)” are the values “Individual: $5,000 per year”, “Candidate Committee: $5,000 per year”, “PAC-multicandidate: $5,000 per year”, “PAC-Nonmulticandidate: $5,000 per year”, “State/District/Local Party Committee: $5,000 per election (combined)”, and “National Party Committee: $5,000 per year”. Under the column “State/District/Local Party Committee” are the values “Individual: $10,000 per year (combined)”, “Candidate Committee: Unlimited Transfers”, “PAC-multicandidate: $5,000 per year (combined)”, “PAC-Nonmulticandidate: $10,000 per year (combined)”, “State/District/Local Party Committee: Unlimited Transfers”, and “National Party Committee: Unlimited Transfers”. Under the column “National Party Committee” are the values “Individual: $36,500* per year”, “Candidate Committee: Unlimited Transfers”, “PAC-multicandidate: $15,000 per year”, “PAC-Nonmulticandidate: $36,500* per year”, “State/District/Local Party Committee: Unlimited Transfers”, and “National Party Committee: Unlimited Transfers”. Under the column “Additional National party Committee Accounts (2)” are the values “Individual: $109,500* per account, per year”, “PAC-Multicandidate: $45,000 per account, per year”, and “PAC-Nonmulticandidate: $109,500* per account per year”. At the bottom of the table the following footnotes are listed: *Indexed for inflation in odd-numbered years. (1) “PAC” here refers to a committee that makes contributions to other federal political committees. Independent-expenditure-only political committees (sometimes called “super PACs”) may accept unlimited contributions, including from corporations and labor organizations. (2) The limits in this column apply to a national party committee’s accounts for: (i) the presidential nominating convention; (ii) election recounts and contests and other legal proceedings; and (iii) national party headquarters buildings. A party’s national committee, Senate campaign committee and House campaign committee are each considered separate national party committees with separate limits. Only a national party committee, not the parties’ national congressional campaign committees, may have an account for the presidential nominating convention. (3) Additionally, a national party committee and its Senatorial campaign committee may contribute up to $51,200 combined per campaign to each Senate candidate. At the bottom of the table, a source is listed: “Federal Election Commission. “Contribution Limits for 2021-2022 Federal Elections.” June, 2021”.

Image 7.20

A map of the United States titled “Initiative and Popular Referendum Provisions by State, 2010”. The legend has five categories, “Referendum”, “Initiative”, “Both”, “Neither”, and “Ballot measures permitted in odd years”. These states are labeled “both”: WA, OR, CA, AK, ID, NV, MT, WY, UT, AZ, CO, ND, SD, NE OK, MO, AR, IL, MI, OH, ME, MA. These states are labeled “neither”: HI, KS, TX, MN, IA, LA, WI, IN, TN, AL, GA, NH, VT, NY, CT, RI, PA, NJ, DE, WV, VA, NC, SC. These states are labeled “referendum”: NM, KY, MD. These states are labeled “Initiative”: MS, FL. These states are also labeled “ballot measures permitted in odd years”: WA, CO, OH, MS, ME.

Chapter 9: Political Parties

Image 9.4

A bar graph titled “Minor Parties in the United States, 1832-2020: Percent of popular vote won by third parties in U.S. Presidential elections”. In 1832, the Anti-Masonic party won 8%. In 1856, the American party won 22%. In 18600, the Democratic (Secessionist) party won 18%, and the Constitutional Union party won 13%. In 1892 the People’s (Populist) party won 8%. In 1912 the Bull Moose (Progressive) party won 27%, and the Socialist party won 6%. In 1924 the Progressive party won 17%. In 1948 the States’ Rights (Dixiecrat) party won 2%, and the Progressive party won 2%. In 1968 the American Independent party won 14%. In 1980 the National Unity party won 7%. In 1992 the Reform party won 19%. In 1996 the Reform party won 8%. In 2000 the Green party won 3%. In 2008, the Reform party won less than 1%.” In 2012, the Libertarian party won 1%. In 2016, the Libertarian party won 3% and the Green party won 1%. In 2020, the Libertarian party won 1%.

Image 9.6

A series of six graphs titled “Polarization of the U.S. Congress”. The x-axis of each graph is labeled “most liberal -1” on the left and “most conservative +1” on the right, and divided vertically by a line in the center labeled “0”. The y-axis of each graph starts at 0 and ends at 85. The first three graphs are labeled “Senate” and arranged horizontally. The left-most graph is titled “93rd Congress, 1973-74” and shows a majority of democratic senators around “.4” and a majority of republican senators around “.3” on the x-axis. A few democrats are shown at “0”, “.1”, and “.2”, and a few republicans are shown at “0”, “-.1”, “-.2”, and “-.3”. The middle graph is titled “103rd Congress, 1992-94” and shows a majority of democrats around “-.2”, and a majority of republicans around “.3”. A few democrats are shown at “0” and “.1”, and a few republicans are shown at “0”, and “-.1”. The right-most graph is titled “112th Congress, 2011-12” and shows a majority of democrats around “-.3”, and a majority of republicans around “.4”. There is no overlap across the line labeled “0”. The second three graphs are labeled “House” and arranged horizontally. The left-most graph is titled “93rd Congress, 1973-74” and shows a majority of democratic senators around “.4” and a majority of republican senators around “.3” on the x-axis. A few democrats are shown at “0”, “.1”, and “.2”, and a few republicans are shown at “0”, “-.1”, and “-.2”. The middle graph is titled “103rd Congress, 1992-94” and shows a majority of democrats around “-.35”, and a majority of republicans around “.4”. A few democrats are shown at “0” and “.1”, and a few republicans are shown at “0”, and “-.1”. The right-most graph is titled “112th Congress, 2011-12” and shows a majority of democrats around “-.4”, and a majority of republicans around “.7”. There is no overlap across the line labeled “0”. A source at the bottom of the graphs reads: “Pew Research Center. Chart sources: Royce Carroll, Jeff Lewis, James Lo, Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, voteview.com. June 12, 2014.”.

Image 9.11

A series of three maps titled “Gerrymandering in Austin, TX, 2003-2015”. The map on the left is labeled “2003-2005” and shows four districts outlined around a city labeled “Austin”. The map in the center is labeled “2005-2007” and shows five districts outlined around a city labeled “Austin”. The map on the right is labeled “2013-2015” and shows six districts outlined around a city labeled “Austin”.

Image 9.15

A series of four graphs titled “Party Identification by Generation, 2004-2014”. The x-axis of all graphs starts at the year 2004 and ends at the year 2016. The y-axis of all graphs starts at 30% and ends at 60%. For the graph labeled “Silent”, a line labeled “Leaning Republican” begins at 43% in 2004, decreases to 40% in 2006, decreases to 38% in 2008, increases to 47% in 2012, and decreases then increases to 47% in 2014, and increases to 52% in 2016. A line labeled “Leaning Democrat” begins at 48% in 2004, increases slightly then decreases slightly back to 48% in 2008, decreases to 45% in 2010, decreases to 43% in 2012, increases slightly then decreases to 42% in 2014, then decreases to 41% in 2016. For the graph labeled “Boomer”, a line labeled “Leaning Republican” begins at 40% in 2004, decreases to 38% in 2008, increases to 41% in 2010, decreases to 40% in 2012, increases then decreases to 40% in 2014, and increases to 48% in 2016. A line labeled “Leaning Democrat” begins at 47% in 2004, increases slightly to 49% in 2008, decreases to 45% in 2010, increases to 47% in 2012, decreases to 46% in 2014, and decreases to 45% in 2016. For the graph labeled “Gen X”, a line labeled “Leaning Republican” begins at 42% in 2004, decreases to 35% in 2008, increases to 40% in 2010, decreases to 39% in 2012, increases then decreases to 38% in 2014, then increases to 43% in 2016. A line labeled “Leaning Democrat” begins at 45% in 2004, increases to 50% in 2008, decreases to 45% in 2010, increases to 49% in 2014, and decreases to 48% in 2016. For the graph labeled “Millennial”, a line labeled “Leaning Republican” begins at 37% in 2004, decreases to 30% in 2008, increases to 34% in 2010, increases then decreases to 34% in 2012, maintains 34% in 2014, and increases to 35% in 2016. A line labeled “Leaning Democrat” begins at 50% in 2004, increases to 55% in 2008, decreases to 51% in 2010, increases to 52% in 2012, decreases to 50% in 2014, and increases to 57% in 2016. At the bottom of the graphs, a source is listed: “Pew Research Center. “Party Identification Trends, 1992-2017.” March 20, 2018”.”

Image 9.16

A chart with eight boxes arranged in three rows within a pyramid. The boxes in the top row are connected by a line and read “National Committee and Chair” and “National Party Convention”. The boxes in the middle row read “State Committee and Chair” and “State Party Convention”. The boxes in the bottom row read “Precinct Committee and Chair”, “County Committee and Chair”, “County Party Convention”, and “Precinct Party Convention”.

Chapter 10: Interest Groups and Lobbying

Image 10.2

Image A is of the back window of a vehicle. A sign visible through the back window reads “I’ll keep my freedom, my guns, and my money, you keep the change!” Image B is an aerial view of a street filled with a large and dense crowd of people carrying signs. Image C is if a group of young people marching with signs related to “March for Our Lives.”

Image 10.12

A table titled “Business sector total donation to Parties and Candidates, 2019-2020”. The table has three columns and 13 rows. From left to right, the rows read “Defense: $46,077,036, 46.1% Democrat, 48.7% Republican”, “Transportation: $147,406,861, 33.7% Democrat, 60.9% Republican”, “Agribusiness: $193,001,307, 24.1% Democrat, 49.0% Republican”, “Construction: $202,086,321, 29.4% Democrat, 60.4% Republican”, “Energy and Natural Resources: $220,122,039, 19.8% Democrat, 45.8% Republican”, “Labor: $259,296,967, 27.5% Democrat, 3.6% Republican”, “Lawyers and Lobbyists: $377,299,670, 73.4% Democrat, 20.7% Republican”, “Communications and Electronics: $619,808,386, 56.4% Democrat, 13.2% Republican”, “Health: $639,636,897, 44.8% Democrat, 25.8% Republican”, “Misc. Business: $837,233,334, 43.6% Democrat, 42.7% Republican”, “Ideology/Single-Issue: $1,680,399,488, 38.2% Democrat, 16.9% Republican”, “Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate: $1,946,712,833, 26.5% Democrat, 23.9% Republican”. “Other: $2,471,996,960, 43.6% Democrat, 42.7% Republican”, At the bottom of the table, a source is listed: “Center for Responsive Politics. “Sector totals, 2019-2020”. March 22, 2021.”.

Image 10.13

A table titled “PAC contributions to Candidates, 2019-2020”. From left to right, the rows read “National Association of Realtors: $3,960,998, 52.1% Democrat, 47.8% Republican”, “National Beer Wholesalers Assn: $3,147,500, 52.8% Democrat, 47.2% Republican”, “Credit Union National Assn: $2,849,800, 53.2% Democrat, 46.7% Republican”, “AT&T Inc: $2,742,000, 46.2% Democrat, 53.7% Republican”, “American Crystal Sugar: $2,702,500, 54.8% Democrat, 45.2% Republican”, “Comcast Corporation: $2,664,500, 45.9% Democrat, 54.1% Republican”, “American Bankers Association: $2,661,200, 31.5% Democrat, 68.5% Republican”, “Operating Engineers Union: $2,599,700, 82.0% Democrat, 18.0% Republican”, “Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transportation Union: $2,488,150, 92.4% Democrat, 7.4% Republican”, “Majority Cmte PAC: $2,460,100, 99.6% Democrat”, “American Federation of Teachers: $2,429,250, 98.9% Democrat, 0.2 Republican”, “National Auto Dealers Association: $2,421,000, 72.0% Democrat, 28.1% Republican.” At the bottom of the table, a source reads “Center for Responsive Politics. “Top 20 PACs Giving to Candidates, 2019-2020.” March 22, 2021.”

Chapter 11: Congress

Image 11.2

A chart with two columns. The column on the left is labeled “Virginia Plan” and reads “Legislature: Bicameral; Representation: Population based (higher population yields more representation); Role of national government: can legislate for states and veto state law”. The column on the right is labeled “New Jersey Plan” and reads “Legislature: unicameral; Representation: State based (each state equally represented); Role of national government: provides defense but does not override state authority”.

Image 11.3

A map of the United States titled “Congressional Apportionment Changes Based on the 2020 Census”. Oregon, Montana, Colorado, Texas, Florida, and North Carolina are marked as having gained appointments. California, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York are marked as having lost appointments. All remaining states are marked as having no change.

Image 11.4

A series of three maps titled “Gerrymandering in Austin, TX, 2003-2015”. The map on the left is labeled “2003-2005” and shows four districts outlined around a city labeled “Austin”. The map in the center is labeled “2005-2007” and shows five districts outlined around a city labeled “Austin”. The map on the right is labeled “2013-2015” and shows six districts outlined around a city labeled “Austin”.

Image 11.5

A pie chart titled “Federal Tax Revenue in Fiscal Year 2020”. The first slice is labeled “Other 8%, $289 billion”. The second slice is labeled “Corporate Income 6%, $212 billion”. The third slice is labeled “Payroll 38%, $1.31 trillion”. The fourth slice is labeled “Individual Income 48%, $1.61 trillion”. A callout box reads “total: $3.42 trillion”. At the bottom of the chart, a source is listed: “CBO Historical Tables, February, 2021.”

Image 11.8

A table titled “Contribution Limits for 2021-2022 Federal Elections”. The rows are labeled “Donors” and the columns are labeled “Recipients”. Under the column “Candidate Committee” are the values “Individual: $2,900* per election”, “Candidate Committee: $2,000 per election”, “PAC-multicandidate: $5,000 per election”, “PAC-Nonmulticandidate: $2,900 per election, “State/District/Local Party Committee: $5,000 per election (combined)”, and “National Party Committee: $5,000 per election (3)”. Under the column “PAC (1) (SSF and Nonconnected)” are the values “Individual: $5,000 per year”, “Candidate Committee: $5,000 per year”, “PAC-multicandidate: $5,000 per year”, “PAC-Nonmulticandidate: $5,000 per year”, “State/District/Local Party Committee: $5,000 per election (combined)”, and “National Party Committee: $5,000 per year”. Under the column “State/District/Local Party Committee” are the values “Individual: $10,000 per year (combined)”, “Candidate Committee: Unlimited Transfers”, “PAC-multicandidate: $5,000 per year (combined)”, “PAC-Nonmulticandidate: $10,000 per year (combined)”, “State/District/Local Party Committee: Unlimited Transfers”, and “National Party Committee: Unlimited Transfers”. Under the column “National Party Committee” are the values “Individual: $36,500* per year”, “Candidate Committee: Unlimited Transfers”, “PAC-multicandidate: $15,000 per year”, “PAC-Nonmulticandidate: $36,500* per year”, “State/District/Local Party Committee: Unlimited Transfers”, and “National Party Committee: Unlimited Transfers”. Under the column “Additional National party Committee Accounts (2)” are the values “Individual: $109,500* per account, per year”, “PAC-Multicandidate: $45,000 per account, per year”, and “PAC-Nonmulticandidate: $109,500* per account per year”. At the bottom of the table the following footnotes are listed: *Indexed for inflation in odd-numbered years. (1) “PAC” here refers to a committee that makes contributions to other federal political committees. Independent-expenditure-only political committees (sometimes called “super PACs”) may accept unlimited contributions, including from corporations and labor organizations. (2) The limits in this column apply to a national party committee’s accounts for: (i) the presidential nominating convention; (ii) election recounts and contests and other legal proceedings; and (iii) national party headquarters buildings. A party’s national committee, Senate campaign committee and House campaign committee are each considered separate national party committees with separate limits. Only a national party committee, not the parties’ national congressional campaign committees, may have an account for the presidential nominating convention. (3) Additionally, a national party committee and its Senatorial campaign committee may contribute up to $51,200 combined per campaign to each Senate candidate. At the bottom of the table, a source is listed: “Federal Election Commission. “Contribution Limits for 2021-2022 Federal Elections.” June, 2021”.

Image 11.9

A chart titled “U.S. House and Senate Reelection Rates, 1964-2014”. The X axis is labeled “Election Cycle” and spans from 1964 to 2014. The Y Axis shows percentage reelection rate, and spans from 0% to 100%. Each year contains two bars; one for the House and one for the Senate. In 1964, the House is approximately 90%, and the Senate is approximately 85%. In 1966, the House and the Senate are both at approximately 90%. In 1968, the House is approximately at 95% and the Senate is at approximately 70%. In 1970, The House is approximately at 85%, and the Senate at approximately 75%. In 1972, the House is at approximately 92% and the Senate is at approximately 72%. In 1974, the House is at approximately 90% and the Senate is at approximately 85%. In 1976, the House is at approximately 95% and the Senate is at 62%. In 1978, The House is at approximately 92% and the Senate at approximately 60%. In 1980, the House is at approximately 90%, and the Senate at approximately 55%. In 1982, the House is at approximately 90% and the Senate at approximately 92%. In 1984, the House is at approximately 95%, and the Senate at approximately 90%. In 1986, the House is at approximately 98% and the Senate at approximately 75%. In 1988, the House is at approximately 98% and the Senate at approximately 85%. In 1990, the House and the Senate are both approximately 95%. In 1992, the House is at approximately 85% and the Senate at approximately 82%. In 1994, the House is at approximately 90%, and the Senate at 92%. In 1996, the House is at approximately 95%, and the Senate at approximately 90%. In 1998, the House is at approximately 98% and the Senate at approximately 90%. In 2000, the House is at approximately 97%, and the Senate at approximately 80%. In 2002, the House is at approximately 95%, and the Senate at approximately 85%. In 2004, the House is at approximately 98%, and the Senate at approximately 95%. In 2006, the House is at approximately 95%, and the Senate at approximately 80%. In 2008, the House is at approximately 95%, and the Senate at approximately 82%. In 2010, the House is at approximately 85%, and the Senate at approximately 82%. In 2012, the House is at approximately 90%, and the Senate at approximately 92%. In 2014, the House is at approximately 95%, and the Senate at approximately 80%. In 2016, the House is at approximately 98% and the Senate at approximately 92%. In 2018, the House is at approximately 92% and the Senate at approximately 85%. At the bottom of the chart, a source is cited: “Opensecrets.org Center for Responsive Politics. ‘Reelection Rates over the Years.’””

Image 11.13

A series of three pie charts titled “U.S. 117th Congress by Gender, Race, and Religion”. The leftmost pie chart shows two slices, one labeled “Male 73.3%” and one labeled “Female 26.7%””. The middle pie chart shows two slices, one labeled “White 76.1%” and one labeled “Black 11%, Hispanic 8.6%, “Asian American 3.2%, and Native American 1.1%”. The rightmost pie chart shows two slices, one labeled “Christian 88.1%” and one labeled “Jewish 6.2%, Buddhist 0.4%, Muslin 0.6%, Hindu 0.4%, Unitarian Universalist 0.6%, Unaffiliated 0.2%, Don’t know/refused 3.4%”. At the bottom of the charts, sources are listed: Pew Research Center. Blazina, Carrie and Drew Desilver. “A Record Number of Women Are Serving in the 117th Congress.” January 15, 2021. Pew Research Center. Schaeffer, Katherine. “Racial, Ethnic Diversity Increases Yet Again with the 117th Congress.” January 28, 2021. Pew Research Center. “Faith on the Hill: The Religious Composition of the 117th Congress.” January 4, 2021.

Image 11.15

Chart shows congressional job approval ratings from 1974 to 2015. Starting around 30% in 1974, it rises slightly to 32% in 1975 before dipping to 25% in 1976. After the dip, it spikes again to35% in 1977, before falling again to 20% in 1979. It rises to 38% in 1981, then falls again in 1982 to 30 %. There is a slow increase to 41% in 1986, where it levels out until 1988, when it begins to drop until it reaches 30% in 1990. It rebounds slightly to 31% in 1991, but falls drastically to 20% in 1992. A sharp increase in 1993 to 25% leads to a steady increase of approval ratings until 200 when it reaches 50%. A drastic spike in 2001 shoots approval ratings up to 82%, and a sharp decline lands approval ratings back at 50% by 2003. It levels off for a year, before falling again to 28% in 2006. A small spike in 2007puts it at 35%, before it falls down to 20% in 2009. There is another small increase to 24% in 2010, then another decrease to 10% in 2013. The chart varies between 10 and 20% from 2015 through 2018, with a peak to about 26% in 2019 followed by a drop to about 15% in 2020. The chart ends with an approval rating of 29% in 2021. At the bottom of the chart, a source is cited: “Gallup. “Congress and the Public.”May 18, 2021.”

Image 11.20

A chart that shows the steps a bill takes to become law. Each step is depicted in a separate box in a linear fashion. From left to right, the boxes read “Bill”, “Introducing legislation”, “Committee work”, “Debate and Amend”, “Budget and Engrossment”, “Committee Work”, “Debate and Amend”, “Enrollment”, “Conference Committee (optional)”, “Final approval”, “Publication”, and “Law”.

Chapter 12: The Presidency

Image 12.3

A map of the United States showing the number of Electoral College votes granted to each state. In alphabetical order, Alabama has 9, Alaska has 3, Arizona has 11, Arkansas has 6, California has 54, Colorado has 10, Connecticut has 7, Delaware has 3, Washington DC has 3, Florida has 30, Georgia has 16, Hawaii has 4, Idaho has 4, Illinois has 19, Indiana has 11, Iowa has 6, Kansas has 6, Kentucky has 8, Louisiana has 8, Maine has 4, Maryland has 10, Massachusetts has 11, Michigan has 15, Minnesota has 10, Mississippi has 6, Missouri has 10, Montana has 4, Nebraska has 5, Nevada has 6, New Hampshire has 4, New Jersey has 14, New Mexico has 5, New York has 28, North Carolina has 16, North Dakota has 3, Ohio has 17, Oklahoma has 7, Oregon has 8, Pennsylvania has 19, Rhode Island has 4, South Carolina has 9, South Dakota has 3, Tennessee has 11, Texas has 40, Utah has 6, Vermont has 3, Virginia has 13, Washington has 12, West Virginia has 4, Wisconsin has 10, and Wyoming has 3.

Image 12.8

This flow chart is called “How to Become President of the United States.” It begins with the U.S. constitution’s requirements for a presidential candidate: natural born citizenship, a minimum age of 35 years, and 14 years of U.S. residency. Step 1 is titled “Primaries and Caucuses.” The chart says “There are many people who want to be President, each with their own ideas about how government should work. People with similar ideas belong to the same political party. This is where primaries and caucuses come in. Candidates from each political party campaign through the country to win the favor of their party members. In a caucus, party members select the best candidate through a series of discussions and votes. In a primary, party members vote for the best candidate that will represent them in the general election.” Step 2 is titled “National Conventions.” The chart says “Each party holds a national convention to select a final presidential nominee. At each convention, the presidential candidate chooses a running mate (Vice Presidential candidate). The presidential candidates campaign throughout the country to win the support of the general population.” Step 3 is titled “General Election.” The chart says “People in every state across the country vote for one President and Vice President. When people cast their vote, they are actually voting for a group of people known as elector.” Step 4 is titled “Electoral College.” The chart says “In the electoral college system, each state gets a certain number of electors based on its representation in Congress. Each elector casts one vote following the general election, and the candidate who gets more than half (270) wins. The newly elected President and Vice President are inaugurated in January.”

Image 12.9

President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris and Presidential Cabinet members in the Grand Foyer of the White House. Seated in the second row, from left, are: Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Standing in the third row, from left, are: Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge. Standing in the fourth row, from left, are: Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan. Standing in the fifth row, from left, are: Small Business Administrator Isabel Guzman, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough, Council of Economic Advisers Chair Cecilia Rouse, and Chief of Staff Ron Klain. Standing in the sixth row, from left, are: National Intelligence Director Avril Haines, Office of Management and Budget Acting Director Shalanda Young, and U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai.

Image 12.18

A graph showing the average number of executive actions each U.S. President took per year in office. In reverse chronological order, Donald Trump took 55 actions per year, Barack Obama took 35 actions per year, George W. Bush took 36, William J. Clinton took 46, George Bush took 42, Ronald Reagan took 48, Jimmy Carter took 80, Gerald R. Ford took 69, Richard Nixon took 62, Lyndon B. Johnson took 63, John F. Kennedy took 75, Dwight D. Eisenhower took 61, Harry S. Truman took 117, Franklin D. Roosevelt took 307, Herbert Hoover took 242, Calvin Coolidge took 215, Warren G. Harding took 217, Woodrow Wilson took 225, William Howard Taft took 181, Theodore Roosevelt took 145, William McKinley took 41, Benjamin Harrison took 36, Grover Cleveland took 31.5, Chester Arthur took 28, James Garfield took 11, Rutherford B. Hayes took 23, Ulysses S. Grant took 27, Andrew Johnson took 20, Abraham Lincoln took 12, James Buchanan took 4, Franklin Pierce took 9, Millard Fillmore took 4.5, Zachary Taylor took 3.7, James J. Polk took 4.5, John Tyler took 4.3, William Henry Harrison took 0, Martin Van Buren took 2.5, Andrew Jackson took 1.5, John Quincy Adams took 0.75, James Monroe took 0.13, James Madison took 0.13, Thomas Jefferson took 0.5, John Adams took 0.25, and George Washington took 1. At the bottom of the graph, a source is listed: “Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, “Executive Orders.” The American Presidency Project. Ed. John T. Wooley and Gerhard Peters. Santa Barbara, CA. 1999-2021.

Chapter 13: The Courts

Image 13.4

A chart that demonstrates the structure of the dual court system. At the top of the chart is a box labeled “U.S. Supreme Court”. There are boxes below it on either side, arranged in the shape of a triangle. On the left hand side of the triangle are two boxes. From bottom to top, the boxes are labeled “U.S. District Courts” and “U.S. Federal Courts.” An arrow points from the top of the box labeled “U.S. District Courts” to the box labeled “U.S. Federal Courts”. An arrow points from the top of the box labeled “U.S. Federal Courts” to the box labeled “U.S. Supreme Court”. On the right hand side of the triangle are three boxes. From bottom to top, the boxes are labeled “State Trial Courts”, “Intermediate Appellate Courts”, and “State Supreme Courts”. An arrow points from the top of the box labeled “State Trial Courts” to the bottom of the box labeled “Intermediate Appellate Courts”. An arrow points from the top of the box labeled “Intermediate Appellate Courts” to the bottom of the box labeled “State Supreme Courts”. An arrow points from the top of the box labeled “State Supreme Courts” to the bottom of the box labeled “U.S. Supreme Court”.

Image 13.5

A map of the Unites States titled “Marijuana Legal Status by State”. The map shows in which states marijuana is illegal, decriminalized, medicinal only, medicinal and decriminalized, and recreational. Marijuana is illegal in Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia, and South Carolina. Marijuana is decriminalized in Nebraska, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Marijuana is medicinal only in Montana, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Marijuana is medicinal and decriminalized in Minnesota, Missouri, Illinois, Ohio, New York, Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Marijuana is recreational in Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Michigan, Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts.

Image 13.6

A map of the Unites States titled “U.S. Courts of Appeals and U.S. District Courts”. The map shows the thirteen courts of appeals and the geographical areas those courts cover. The first region covers the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. The second region covers the states of Vermont, New York, and Connecticut. The third region covers the states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. The fourth region covers the states of Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The fifth region covers the states of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. The sixth region covers the states of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The seventh region covers the states of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. The eighth region covers the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas. The ninth region covers the states of Washington, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, California, Nevada, Hawaii, Alaska, and Arizona. The tenth region covers the states of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. The eleventh region covers the states of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. The twelfth court is labeled “DC Federal Circuit” and the thirteenth court is labeled “DC Supreme Court”.

Image 13.9

A chart titled “Appointments of the Current Supreme Court Justices”. A horizontal timeline runs through the center of the chart. Starting from the left, the first point marked on the line is labeled “Clarence Thomas, Appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1991”. The label is colored red to indicate conservative. The second point is labeled “Stephen Breyer, Appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994”. The label is colored blue to indicate liberal. The third point is labeled “John Roberts (Chief), Appointed by George W. Bush in 2005”. The label is colored red to indicate conservative. The fourth point is labeled “Samuel Alito, Appointed by George W. Bush in 2006”. The label is colored red to indicate conservative. The fifth point is labeled “Sonia Sotomayor, Appointed by Barack Obama in 2009”. The label is colored blue to indicate liberal. The sixth point is labeled “Elena Kagan, Appointed by Barack Obama in 2010”. The label is colored blue to indicate liberal. The seventh point is labeled “Neil Gorsuch, Appointed by Donald Trump in 2017”. The label is colored red to indicate conservative. The eighth point is labeled “Brett Kavanaugh, Appointed by Donald Trump in 2018”. The label is colored red to indicate conservative. The ninth point is labeled “Amy Coney Barrett, Appointed by Donald Trump in 2020”. The label is colored red to indicate conservative.

Chapter 14: State and Local Government

Image 14.4

A graph titled “Federal Spending vs. State and Local Spending”. The x-axis of the graph is labeled “Year” and reads from left to right “1930”, “1940”, “1950”, “1960”, “1970”, “1980”, “1990”, “2000”, “2010”, and “2020”. The y-axis is labeled “Expenditure as percent of GDP” and reads from bottom to top “5%”, “10%”, “15%”, “20%”, “25%”, “30%”, “35%”, “40%”, and “45%”. A line labeled “Federal” starts around 4% in 1930, rises to around 10% in 1940, rises sharply to around 40% around 1945, drops sharply to around 15% in 1960, increases to around 20% in 1970, increases to around 23% in 1980, decreases to around 19% in 200, increases to around 25% in 2010, and ends at 32.5% in 2020. A line labeled “State” starts around 10% in 1930, rises to around 11% then drops back to around 10% in 1940, drops to around 5% then rises to around 8% in 1950, rises to around 10% in 1960, rises to around 13% in 1970, rises to around 14% then drops back around 13% in 1980, maintains around 13% in 1990, rises to around 14% in 2000, rises to around 16% in 2010, and ends at 14.3% in 2020. At the bottom of the graph a source is cited: “U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. NIPA table 1.1.5: “Gross Domestic Product.” April 29, 2021. NIPA Table 3.2: “Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures.” April 29, 2021. NIPA Table 3.3: “State and Local Government Current Receipts and Expenditures.” April 29, 2021.

Image 14.5

A pie chart titled “Local Revenue Funding Source, 2017”. There are six regions on the pie chart. Starting at the top and moving clockwise, the regions are labeled “Charges and miscellaneous 23%”, “Sales tax 7%”, “Other tax 2%”, “Income tax 2%”, “Intergovernmental transfer 36%”, and “Property tax 30%”. At the bottom of the chart a source is cited: “Tax Policy Center/Brookings Institution. “Local Government Revenue, Percentage Distribution, 1977 to 2017.” May 27, 2020.

Image 14.7

A map of the United States titled “Elazar’s Cultural Classification by State”. States marked as “Individualistic” are Nevada, Wyoming, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, DC, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Alaska, and Hawaii. States marked as “Moralistic” are California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. States marked as “Traditionalistic” are Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Image 14.8

A map of the United States titled “America’s Poor by Region”. Four regions are marked on the map; “West” covers Alaska, Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico, “Midwest” covers North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio, “South” covers “Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and DC, and “Northeast” covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and New York. A legend to the right of the map is labeled “% of U. S. population below poverty line”. For “South” it reads “45.9% in 1969”, and “41.1% in 2014”. For “Northeast” it reads “17% in 1969” and “16.1% in 2014”. For “Midwest” it reads “22.5% in 1979” and “19.0% in 2014”. For “West” it reads “14.6% in 1969” and “23.8% in 2014”.

Image 14.14

A map of the United States titled “Percentage of Women in State Legislature, but State, 2021”. These states are 10-19%: WY, LA, MS, AL, TN, SC, WV. These states are 20-29%: UT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, IA, MO, AR, IN, KY, PA, NC. These states are 30-39%: AK, HI, CA, ID, MT, MN, WI, IL, MI, OH, GA, FL, VA, DE, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, NH. These states are 40-49%: WA, OR, CO, NM, AZ, ME, VT, RI, MD. These states are 50-59%: DC. These states are 60-69%: NV.

Image 14.15

A map shows legislative control of state house and senate by state as of 2021. These states are marked “Republican”: AK, ID, MT, WY, UT, AZ, ND, SD, KS, OK, TX, IA, MO, AR, LA, WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, KY, WV, TN, NC, MS, AL, GA, FL, SC NH. These states are marked “Democrat”: WA, OR, CA, NV, CO, NM, IL, ME, VT, NY, MA, RI, CT, NJ, DE, MD, DC, VA. Minnesota is marked “split”. Nebraska is marked “Nonpartisan and Unicameral”.

Image 14.16

A map of the United States titled “Level of Professionalism Within State Legislatures, 2008”. California, Pennsylvania, and New York are marked “Full-time, high salary, large staff”. Alaska, Florida, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Massachusetts, are marked “Full-time, moderately high salary, moderately large staff”. Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginal, DC, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Hawaii are marked “Hybrid”. Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Kansas, Mississippi, Georgia, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Maine are marked “Part-time, moderately low salary, moderately small staff”. Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, and New Hampshire are marked “Part-time, low salary, low staff”.

Image 14.17

A graph titled “Term Limits by State”. The x-axis is labeled “State” and the y-axis is labeled “Years”. The graph has a legend with four categories marked “House”, “Senate,” “Total,” and “Lifetime Ban”. From left to right on the x-axis: “MI” has a ban of 6 years lifetime in the house, and 8 years total lifetime in the senate; “NE” has a ban of 8 years total; “AZ” has a ban of 8 years in the house, and 8 years in the senate; “CO” has a ban of 8 years in the house, and 8 years in the senate; “FL” has a ban of 8 years in the house, and 8 years in the senate; “ME” has a ban of 8 years in the house, and 8 years in the senate; “MT” has a ban of 8 years in the house, and 8 years in the senate; “OH” has a ban of 8 years in the house, and 8 years in the senate; “SD” has a ban of 8 years in the house, and 8 years in the senate; “MO” has a ban of 8 years in the house, and 8 years total lifetime in the senate; “CA” has a ban of 12 years lifetime; “OK” has a ban of 12 years lifetime; “LA” has a ban of 12 years in the house, and 12 years in the senate; “NV” has a ban of 12 years in the house, and 12 years total lifetime in the senate; “AR” has a ban of 16 years total.”

Image 14.18

A timeline chart titled “Term Limit Repeals”. A horizontal line stretches across the chart and is marked with seven points. The first point is labeled “Enacted (1992), WY, OR, WA”. An arrow points from “WA” to the fourth point on the timeline, labeled “Repealed by State Supreme Court (1998)”. An arrow points from “OR” to the fifth point on the timeline, labeled “Repealed by State Supreme Court (2002)”. An arrow points from “WA” to the seventh point on the timeline, labeled “Repealed by State Supreme Court (2004)”. The second point is labeled “Enacted (1994), MA, ID, UT”. An arrow points from “MA” to the third point on the timeline, labeled ““Repealed by State Supreme Court (1997)”. An arrow points from “ID” to the fifth point on the timeline, labeled “Repealed by Legislature (2002)”. An arrow points from “UT” to the sixth point on the timeline, labeled “Repealed by Legislature (2003)”.

Chapter 15: The Bureaucracy

Image 15.3

(a) is an illustration of Ulysses S. Grant being sworn in as President of the United States; (b) is a cartoon featuring a statue of Andrew Jackson riding a pig over a bed of skulls. A plaque on the pedestal reads “To the victors belong the spoils.”

Image 15.16

A copy of the first page of the letter that led to Donald Trump’s first impeachment begins, “Dear Chairman Schiff and Ranking Member Nunes: On August 12, 2019, the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) received a disclosure from an individual (hereinafter “the Complainant”) regarding an alleged “urgent concern,” pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(A).” Next to the image of the letter is an image of a person’s silhouette with a question mark over the silhouette.

Chapter 16: Domestic Policy

Image 16.13

A graph titled “Publicly Held Federal Debt, 1790-2021”. The x-axis ranges from 1790 to 2030. The y-axis ranges from 0 to 200, representing percentage of gross domestic product. A line starts at approximately 25% in 1790, decreases to around 0% in 1830 and remains until around 1860, increases to around 25% in 1870, decreases to around 0% in 1910, increases to around 25% in 1920 with a label “World War I”, decreases then increases to around 40% in 1935 with a label “The Great Depression”, increases to around 100% in 1945 with a label “World War II”, decreases to around 20% in 1970, increases to around 40% in 1990, decreases to around 25% in 2009 with a label “The Great Recession”, increases to around 30% in 2010, increases to around 50% in 2020 with a label “Pandemic”. A dotted line from 2010 shows a minor increase to 2030 labeled “Projected”. At the bottom of the graph, a source is listed: “Congressional Budget Office. The 2021 Long-Term Budget Outlook. March 2021.”

Image 16.14

A flow diagram has four boxes. The first box “Agenda” says “Identify problem and solution”; the second box “Enactment” says “Approve acting on solution”; the third box “Implementation” says “Implement solution”; the fourth box “Evaluation” says “Assess the effectiveness of policy to address problem.”

Image 16.15

A graph titled “U.S. Federal Spending in the Fiscal Year 2020.” Three pie charts are presented. The first chart shows that 66% of federal spending is mandatory spending, broken down into these categories: Social Security $1090 billion, 16%; Medicare & Medicaid $1450 billion, 21%; PPP & Unemployment & COVID relief $2029 billion, 29%. The second chart shows that 19% of federal spending is discretionary spending, broken down into these categories: Defense $714 billion, 10%; Health $178 billion, 3%; Transportation $117 billion, 2%; Education & Social $107 billion, 2%; Veterans $83 billion, 1%; Income Security $79 billion, 1%. The third chart shows that 15% is other spending, broken down into these categories: Other Mandatory $336 billion, 5%; Other Discretionary $353 billion, 5%; Neither: Net interest: $345 billion, 5%.

Image 16.19

A chart titled “Funding for the U.S. Government as % of Total Revenue, 2020”. From left to right, “Other, 5.9%”, “Excise taxes, 2.5%”, “Corporate income taxes, 6.2%”, “Payroll taxes, 38.3%”, and “Individual income taxes, 47.0%”. At the bottom of the chart, a source is listed: “Congressional Budget Office; Office of Management and Budget. “Revenues, by Major Source, Since 1962.” The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2021 to 2031. February 2021.”

Chapter 17: Foreign Policy

Image 17.14

A chart titled “Multiple foreign Policy Directors”. At the top of the chart are three boxes. The box on the left is labeled “Chief of Staff”, the center box is labeled “President”, and the box on the right is labeled “Vice President”. The boxes labeled “Chief of Staff” and “Vice President” are connected with dotted lines to the “President” box. Under the “President” box are seven boxes connected with solid lines. From left to right, the boxes are labeled “Secretary of State,” “Secretary of Defense”, “Secretary of Homeland Security”, “National Security Advisor”, “U.S. Trade Representative”, “Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff”, “Director of National Intelligence (to whom the CIA director reports)”.