AO1: Democratic Party has historically supported affirmative action as one method of improving racial equality. AO2: This has led to support in a variety of federal and state legislatures and administrations for affirmative action programs in various areas. AO3: This support has continued even where the Democrats are in opposition rather than the governing parties, with concerted efforts to oppose the abolition of affirmative action programs. AO1: Affirmative action has been upheld by the Supreme Court. AO2: This has allowed programs to continue, particularly in the field of education where race is allowed as one factor when considering admissions. AO3: Such rulings are seen as ensuring the protection of equal rights in previous landmark cases whilst ensuring one race is not favoured at the extent of the other; arguably this is what led to an increase in university graduations. AO1: Statistics show improvements in racial equality since affirmative action began e.g. black middle-class workers. AO2: Some of the increases in federal Evidence suggests that opportunities in education and employment in particular would not have been available without affirmative action programs. AO3: This suggests that affirmative action is a more effective way of moving towards racial equality than minority participation in Congress as it offers practical opportunities and support rather than simply offering role models. AO1: Presidents often show support for affirmative action programmes e.g. Obama in Fisher v Texas. AO2: This is often supported by affirmative action programs within the executive administration and executive orders, so leading by example for other organisations and political administrations. AO3: This helps to ensure that affirmative action programs are maintained and address issues of inequality in multiple areas rather than focusing on the issue of political representation alone.

AO1: Minority representation has increased in Congress in recent years which may be more significant that affirmative action. AO2: Minority participation may be more significant as it has led other measures have been taken by Congress and the presidency to improve racial equality e.g. legislation such as DACA. AO3: This is particularly evident when the Democratic Party are in power, either in Congress or the presidency, as tackling inequality, and especially racial inequality, is in line with the party ideology. AO1: Individual minority figures have become high-profile role models which may be more significant that affirmative action. AO2: These individuals can then use their position in Congress to highlight racial inequality both within Congress and to directly introduce measures or policies aimed at reducing such inequality. AO3: The position of power combined with high media profiles can be more influential in persuading other members of Congress to support such initiatives. AO1: The current and past two Congressional sessions have been the most diverse ever, with limited use of affirmative action and reliance on majority/minority districts instead. AO2: Affirmative action is not permitted for congressional elections, and so could not improve racial equality in terms of representation in Congress. AO3: This suggests that the increase in minority participation is more significant, as it has led to further diversity, particularly when considering that diversity amongst freshmen in the 116th Congress was the highest on record. AO1: The first black president was elected without affirmative action after first gaining political experience in the Senate. AO2: It has been suggested that the election of a black president led to a coat-tails effect in the diversity of Congressional representation which would not have taken place otherwise. AO3: This, combined with an increase in policies related to tackling racial inequality under a more diverse Congress, suggests that minority participation is more significant than affirmative action.