Bennett, Cawthorn advance to Republican primary runoff in NC-11
Hunt wins Republican primary in Texas’ 7th Congressional District
Granger defeats Putnam in Texas’ 12th Congressional District Republican primary

Sessions, Tuberville advance to Republican primary runoff for Senate in Alabama

Cunningham wins Democratic primary for Senate in NC
SCOTUS asks solicitor general to weigh in on Calif. law requiring nonprofits to disclose donors
On Feb. 24, the United States Supreme Court called on United States Solicitor General Noel John Francisco to file a brief expressing the federal government’s views on two suits challenging a California law requiring nonprofits to disclose identifying information about their donors. The lawsuit names and docket numbers are Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra (19-251) and Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra (19-255).
What does it mean when the Supreme Court calls on the Solicitor General to submit a brief, and what comes next? These orders are generally referred to as “Calls for the View of the Solicitor General” (CVSGs). Four of the Supreme Court’s nine justices must concur in order to issue a CVSG. Before becoming a federal appellate court judge in 2013, Patricia Millett wrote, “CVSGs are a unique feature of Supreme Court practice, and they underscore the special position of the Solicitor General in Supreme Court litigation. The Court is seeking the views of a non-party, not on the merits of the case, but on whether the Court should exercise its discretionary certiorari jurisdiction to hear the case at all.”
In its Feb. 24 order, the Supreme Court did not set a deadline for the brief. According to Millett, “The Solicitor General’s Office strives to file pending CVSGs in time to meet the Court’s traditional cut-off dates for action each Term.”
- More about the Solicitor General: The office of the United States Solicitor General is an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice that argues on behalf of the federal government before the Supreme Court and in all federal appellate courts. The federal government is involved either as a party or as an amicus curiae in approximately two-thirds of all cases before the Supreme Court.
What is at issue? California law requires nonprofits to file copies of their IRS 990 forms with the state. Schedule B of this form includes the names and addresses of all individuals who donated more than $5,000 to the nonprofit in a given tax year. The California law requires that nonprofits give the state copies of their Schedule B forms. Although the law does not allow public access of Schedule B information, court documents indicate inadvertent disclosures have occurred.
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra (19-251) and Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra (19-255): In 2014, Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, filed suit in U.S. district court, alleging violations of their First Amendment associational rights. In 2016, Judge Manuel Real, of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, found in favor of AFPF and enjoined the state from collecting Schedule B information from the group. Real was appointed to the court by Pres. Lyndon Johnson (D).
In 2015, Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), also a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, filed a similar suit in the same U.S. district court. In a separate 2016 ruling, Real also found in favor of TMLC and enjoined the state from collecting Schedule B information from the group.
The two suits were combined on appeal. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously overturned Real’s rulings in 2018. Judges Raymond Fisher, Richard Paez, and Jacqueline Nguyen issued the ruling. Fisher and Paez were appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton (D). Nguyen was appointed by President Barack Obama (D). The plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for en banc review. That petition was rejected March 29, with five judges dissenting. On Aug. 26, 2019, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
What we’re reading
- Nonprofit Quarterly, “Hiding Behind a Shield: Nonprofit Status Helps Conceal Political Money,” Feb. 28, 2020
- Law360, “Justices Ask US SG To Weigh In On Calif. Donor Privacy Row,” Feb. 24, 2020
- The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, “‘We’re Your Government and We’re Here to Help’: Obtaining Amicus Support from the Federal Government in Supreme Court cases,” Spring 2009
The big picture
Number of relevant bills by state: We’re currently tracking 44 pieces of legislation dealing with donor disclosure. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking.
Number of relevant bills by current legislative status
Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s)
Recent legislative actions
Below is a complete list of legislative actions taken on relevant bills since our last issue. Bills are listed in alphabetical order, first by state then by bill number.
- Connecticut HB05406: This bill would establish disclosure requirements for independent expenditures supporting or opposing incumbents before they form committees.
- Introduced and referred to Joint Government Administration and Elections Committee Feb. 28.
- Committee sponsorship.
- Connecticut HB05410: This bill would, among other things, increase disclosure of independent expenditures and prohibit such expenditures by foreign-influenced entities.
- Introduced and referred to Joint Government Administration and Elections Committee Feb. 28.
- Committee sponsorship.
- Kentucky HB522: This bill would establish reporting and disclosure requirements for internet announcements that expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate or group of candidates.
- Introduced Feb. 27.
- Democratic sponsorship.
- Tennessee HB2665: This bill would prohibit public agencies from requiring 501(c) entities to furnish them with personal information about donors.
- Subcommittee on Constitutional Protections and Sentencing action deferred from Feb. 25 to March 3.
- Republican sponsorship.
- Virginia HB849: This bill would subject political campaign communications made via online platforms to the same disclosure requirements currently applied to print media, television, and radio advertisements.
- House approved Senate substitute Feb. 25.
- Democratic sponsorship.
- Virginia SB979: This bill extends the applicability of the state’s campaign finance disclosure act to candidates for directors or soil and water conservation districts.
- House Privileges and Elections Committee advanced Feb. 28.
- Republican sponsorship.
1,344 pledged delegates at stake on Super Tuesday
|
Click here to learn more.
Henderson appointed to New Mexico Court of Appeals
Shammara Henderson (D), the first Black judge appointed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, reportedly started hearing cases at the beginning of March. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) appointed Henderson to the court on February 14, 2020, following the retirement of former judge M. Monica Zamora (D) in January.
Henderson’s appointment to the intermediate appellate court is her first judicial position. She worked in the United States Attorney’s Office in New Mexico for six years before moving into private law practice in 2017. She served as the Associate General Counsel to former Gov. Bill Richardson (D) from 2008-2009.
The president of the New Mexico Black Lawyers Association, Aja Brooks, confirmed to The Associated Press that Henderson is the first African-American judge to be appointed to the state appeals court.
Henderson will finish the remainder of Zamora’s eight-year term which runs through the end of 2020. She must run in a partisan general election on Nov. 3, 2020, in order to remain on the court. A second position on the state Court of Appeals, currently held by Judge Zachary Ives, is also up for election this year. Both Ives and Henderson have filed to run.
Click here to learn more.
Additional reading:
- New Mexico Court of Appeals
- New Mexico intermediate appellate court elections, 2020
- M. Monica Zamora
Ballotpedia releases federal judicial vacancy count for February
In this month’s federal judicial vacancy count, Ballotpedia tracked nominations, confirmations, and vacancies from February 4, 2020, to March 2, 2020. Ballotpedia publishes the federal judicial vacancy count at the start of each month.
HIGHLIGHTS
• Vacancies: There has been one new judicial vacancy since the January 2020 report. There are 72 vacancies out of 870 active Article III judicial positions on courts covered in this report. Including the United States Court of Federal Claims and the United States territorial courts, 78 of 890 active federal judicial positions are vacant.
• Nominations: There have been 10 new nominations since the January 2020 report.
• Confirmations: There have been six new confirmations since the January 2020 report.
New vacancies
There were 72 vacancies out of 870 active Article III judicial positions, a total vacancy percentage of 8.3, which is 0.3 percentage points lower than the vacancy percentage in January 2020.
• The nine-member U.S. Supreme Court does not have any vacancies.
• One (0.6%) of the 179 U.S. Appeals Court positions is vacant.
• 69 (10.2%) of the 677 U.S. District Court positions are vacant.
• Two (22.2%) of the nine U.S. Court of International Trade positions are vacant.
A vacancy occurs when a judge resigns, retires, takes senior status, or passes away. Article III judges, who serve on courts authorized by Article III of the Constitution, are appointed for life terms.
One judge left active status, creating an Article III life-term judicial vacancy. As an Article III judicial position, this vacancy must be filled by a nomination from the president. Nominations are subject to confirmation on the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.
• Judge Andrew Brasher left his seat on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama after he was elevated to the U.S Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
U.S. Court of Appeals vacancies
The following chart tracks the number of vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals from the inauguration of President Donald Trump (R) to the date indicated on the chart.
The following maps show the number of vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals at the inauguration of President Donald Trump (R) and as of March 2, 2020.
New nominations
President Trump has announced 10 new nominations since the January 2020 report.
• David Dugan, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
• Iain D. Johnston, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
• Franklin U. Valderrama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
• Christy Wiegand, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
• Saritha Komatireddy, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
• Jennifer Rearden, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
• J. Philip Calabrese, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
• James Knepp II, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
• Brett H. Ludwig, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
• Michael J. Newman, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Since taking office in January 2017, President Trump has nominated 249 individuals to Article III positions.
New confirmations
Since February 4, 2020, the U.S. Senate has confirmed six of President Trump’s nominees to Article III seats. As of March 2, 2020, the Senate has confirmed 193 of President Trump’s judicial nominees—138 district court judges, 51 appeals court judges, two Court of International Trade judges, and two Supreme Court justices—since January 2017.
• Andrew Brasher, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
• Matthew Schelp, confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
• Joshua Kindred, confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
• John Kness, confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
• Philip Halpern, confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
• Silvia Carreno-Coll, confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
Click here to learn more.
Additional reading:
- The Federal Judicial Vacancy Count 2/3/2020
- Federal judicial appointments by president
- United States federal courts
- Current federal judicial vacancies
- The Trump administration on federal courts
- Judicial vacancies during Trump’s first term