In a rare leak from the Supreme Court, potentially unprecedented in modern history, a draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey was leaked to the news outlet Politico in an apparent attempt to exert pressure on conservative justices to change their minds.

The 98-page draft, written by Justice Samuel Alito, reveals a sweeping repudiation of almost a half-century of appalling precedent from the Supreme Court.

Justice Alito argues powerfully and persuasively:

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.

“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

These words sum up countless hours of work and prayer from men and women across the nation who, since 1973, have poured themselves into saving the lives of the unborn.

In the Wyoming legislature this year, a special bill called a “Trigger Bill” was passed to return Wyoming laws back to the pre-1973 understanding of a baby’s right to live, regardless of which side of the womb it was on. It overwhelmingly passed and was signed into law.

It’s called a “trigger” bill because it will go into effect (triggered) when Roe v. Wade is overturned, which, as the leak indicates, could happen anytime. The men and women who worked so diligently to pass this bill have ensured that in Wyoming, we value life. I am asking you to reach out to your State Senator and State Representative and say, “Thank you.”

We should also note that these legislators stand on the shoulders of many who went before them, struggling to pass legislation even when no hope appeared in sight. Many of them, already passed on into eternity, may not be here to celebrate the victory, but they stood on principle and voted for what was right, despite the nay-sayers.

At the end of the day, it was you, men and women who “stand firm and take action” – who prayed, worked, voted and endured – who have been the backbone of this victory. The battle isn’t over; it has switched to a different battlefield. Roe v. Wade may be overturned, but that would mean that the decisions simply return to state legislatures across the nation. It is more imperative than ever that we elect Godly men and women to stand.

We will be releasing our candidate scorecard this summer to help you determine who will stand for life, religious freedom, and family values. Please consider supporting us with a gift of any amount as we help you stand for the next generation.

For Life,

Nathan Winters
Executive Director

Dear Friend,

This week, we experienced a political earthquake. The leaked decision revealed a Supreme Court intent on overturning Roe v. Wade. And the Left came unhinged.

In the process, we got two sneak peeks:

And that’s where my urgent concern arises. So far, Planned Parenthood and their allies are simply better equipped for that battle. That’s because the abortion industry is raising money like it never has before!

One Big Tech titan just poured $275 million into Planned Parenthood and their state affiliates. That’s on top of $3.4 billion in annual cashflow for nearly 200 pro-abortion groups around the country.

Abortion groups are about to go hog wild with that money for three things:

Yes, the battle is headed to the states. And for 18 years – since we started as Focus on the Family Action – the states have been our prime focus. Electing state leaders. Training state legislators. And serving an alliance of 40 state allied groups.

Critical needs are already taking shape. An allied state leader just told us that they are gearing up for a generational fight, with the abortion industry likely to file a ballot measure on the heels of a Supreme Court decision that lets states decide.

That state illustrates what’s at stake: Within six months, virtually all babies there could be protected OR abortion could be enshrined in the state constitution!

That leads me to an urgent request. Family Policy Alliance needs your financial support for the state-by-state battles ahead.

We don’t need to match every Planned Parenthood dollar. After all, we have the Truth on our side. But we must be competitive! And by joining with thousands of others – each giving something of significance – you will stand toe-to-toe with Planned Parenthood in the most critical battles, state-by-state.

The support of friends like you has helped Family Policy Alliance prepare for this moment for a long time:

If you’ve been a part of making that possible, thank you for laying the foundation.

Now, will you equip the pro-life team for winning action? Please join this effort today with your best gift to stand against the onslaught from Planned Parenthood and their pro-abortion allies!

It’s the moment we’ve been waiting for. With God’s help, let’s go win!

For Life,

Craig DeRoche
President & CEO

P.S. I need you to go big today! We finally have a chance to fully protect life. Your gift, now more than ever, will go to the front lines to save little lives, state by state.

Recently, Congress passed the large omnibus spending bill.

Speaking of women, a current U.S. Supreme Court nominee is having a hard time defining what a woman is.

This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings for the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Judge Jackson certainly holds high credentials. However, her answers during the nomination hearings raise concerns on how she will rule as a Justice of the nation’s highest Court. Here are some notable exchanges and information related to this week’s nomination hearings:

What is a woman?

“Can you provide the definition of the word, ‘woman’?” –Sen. Blackburn, TN
I can’t. Not in this context. I’m not a biologist.” –Judge Jackson

“Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?” –Sen. Blackburn, TN
Senator, respectfully, I’m not familiar with that particular quote or case, so it’s hard for me to comment whether or not.” –Judge Jackson

Should life be protected?

“When does life begin, in your opinion?” –Sen. Kennedy, LA
Senator, I don’t know.” –Judge Jackson

 “Can an unborn child feel pain at 20 weeks in the birthing process?” –Sen. Graham, SC
Senator, I don’t know.” –Judge Jackson

How should child pornography be punished?

Sen. Hawley (MO) raised multiple questions related to cases in which Judge Jackson provided lenient rulings on child pornography cases.

Sen. Hawley pointed out that in all child pornography cases in which she had discretion, Judge Jackson “sentenced below the guidelines and below the government’s recommendations.”

In one case, United States v. Hawkins, an 18-year-old uploaded 17 videos and 16 images of child pornography, including an 11-year-old committing a sexual act and being sexually assaulted by an adult male, as well as videos of multiple other minors videoed committing sexual acts.

The federal sentencing guidelines recommended 97 months, up to 10 years.
The “liberal” prosecutor asked for 2 years.
Judge Jackson issued a sentence of 3 months.

Judge Jackson’s response included that she “takes these cases very seriously” and that “sentencing is a discretionary act of a judge…on an individualized basis.”

Judge Jackson has previously argued in a paper at Harvard Law School that the judicial system is “unfair” to sexual predators and questioned whether they should even be imprisoned.

What is Marriage?

When Sen. Cornyn (TX) asked about the infamous Obergefell marriage case’s creation of conflict between religious beliefs and law:

Judge Jackson stated she would not be able to comment as these issues were making their way through the courts.

Note: When previously questioned on rights “not expressly enumerated in the Constitution,” Judge Jackson statedObergefell v. Hodges…affirms a constitutional right to marry.”

The nomination of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice reminds us of the impact nine lifetime appointments can have on each of our lives and the lives of future generations. Cases related to life, marriage, religious liberty, free speech, and more are decided by the individuals confirmed to the nation’s highest Court. It is truly a sobering moment, and a strong reminder that elections have consequences that will impact generations.

Our team will keep you updated as the nomination process continues.

For Family and Freedom,

Nicole Hudgens
Government Affairs

Dear Friends,

This week, Family Policy Alliance of New Mexico filed a Supreme Court brief in support of Coach Joseph Kennedy – because religious speech should not be singled-out for punishment in a free and diverse society.

Joe Kennedy coached football at the Bremerton School District in Washington State. At the end of each game, he would briefly pray, on his own, at the 50-yard line. Curious about what he was doing, a couple of students came to him and when they learned that he was praying, they asked if they could join. Kennedy responded, “It’s a free country, you can do what you want.” Without the coach’s prompting, more students joined in the post-game prayer and eventually students and coaches from other teams joined in as well.

Nearly half of the team had joined Coach Kennedy when the school suddenly told him that he could no longer pray publicly. Despite initially obeying the order, Kennedy believed it violated his freedoms of speech and religion and therefore, chose to return to his post-game prayer tradition – a decision that eventually cost him his job.

The school claimed that they needed to fire Coach Kennedy so that they would not be in violation of the Establishment Clause, a clause in the First Amendment that prohibits the government from “establishing” a religion. That’s the same clause twisted by the Supreme Court to rule that prayer in schools is “unconstitutional”.

The Supreme Court’s modern interpretation of the Establishment Clause has been based on the idea that religious pluralism requires neutrality. But in reality, the effect at schools like Bremerton School District has not been neutrality, but rather a singling out of only religious speech as the only speech worthy of punishment.

A school should not punish a coach for a brief prayer at the end of a football game. Our constitution does not require us to abandon our religious traditions, and the Establishment Clause does not require schools to fire a coach like Joe Kennedy. But if Coach Kennedy can be silenced, do any of us really have freedom?

We must do better! The brief that we have filed with the Supreme Court calls to question whether the Establishment Clause, created to protect our religious freedom from government involvement, trumps Coach Kennedy’s speech and religious rights to pray briefly at the 50-yard line.

Will you pray with us? Pray that the United States Supreme Court will recognize the encroachment of freedoms of both religion and speech in this case. Pray that their decision will honor the freedoms that our Founding Fathers established and that so many have given their lives to protect. Pray that religious speech will no longer be singled-out as the only speech worthy of punishment.

Standing Firm,

Jodi Hendricks
Executive Director

Dear Friends,

Despite our nation’s focus on Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, today will be a significant day for U.S. policy and jurisprudence as well. This afternoon, President Biden announced Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as his U.S. Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Stephen Breyer.

If confirmed, Judge Jackson’s decisions will significantly impact life, families, and religious freedom in our country. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled on key cases in each of these areas, and this trend will continue. As an associate justice, Judge Jackson would likely sit on the bench for an important religious freedom case the Court has already agreed to hear in the next term – and a lifetime of a cases on other key constitutional issues that impact everyday life for American families.

Judge Jackson has a background as a policy attorney who was confirmed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. just last year. She has written very few opinions for that court, but unfortunately her record is one of opposing protections for unborn life and religious freedom.

Family Policy Alliance will be closely watching the confirmation process and seeking to understand how Judge Jackson would handle these critical issues.

We will keep you updated on the confirmation process as we assess how a potential Justice Jackson will impact families across America.

Sincerely,

Joseph Kohm

Joseph Kohm III
Director, Public Policy

I often hear parents voice their frustration by saying, “I can’t believe they are teaching this in school!” Unfortunately, I can.

Our current educational crisis has not taken me by surprise. We have been warning churches, legislators, and parents for years that the effort to sexualize minors with pornographic novels, to teach risky sexual acts to young children, and to sow seeds of confusion regarding the binary gender was part of a plan to fundamentally change society.

And the building block of society is the Family.

One of the first major Supreme Court cases that began the process to redefine the family was Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. This decision set a precedent that state legislators across the country cannot create laws based on traditional sexual morality. But this wasn’t enough…

This immediately gave rise to the effort to recognize civil unions between adults of the same sex. In October of 2006, the NJ Supreme Court forced the state legislature to create a law that recognizes the legal union of two individuals of the same sex. But this wasn’t enough….

Civil Unions quickly became a national push to legalize same sex marriages. The definition of the nuclear family unit had to be redefined according to activists. In NJ, our organization, along with churches and partners across the state, faithfully and successfully stopped the redefinition of marriage for ten years. After five legislative sessions, it finally did pass, but Governor Chris Christie vetoed it. But this wasn’t enough…

(In NJ, the legal definition of marriage remained one man and one woman until January 2022! It was legal in NJ based on the 2015 Supreme Court case below, but it was not codified into state law until last month.)

What activists long depended on was the ultra-liberal progressives that sat on the nation’s highest court to implement their plan. In June 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that every state was required to recognize same-sex marriages, thereby overturning five thousand years of world religions, ethnic cultures, traditional laws, and long-standing bedrock family structures. But this wasn’t enough…

The end game to redefine the family was never intended to simply allow adults to receive legal rights between partners as married couples do. It was always about teaching the next generation of children to adopt new sexual ethics and practices.

Next week, we will continue drawing the direct link between the kindergarten classroom in NJ and the national, decade-long movement to force the state to end its recognition of the gender binary.

I leave you with this platform statement from Liberation Road, a far-left socialist organization: “Gender liberation goes beyond mere equality, but requires the fundamental transformation of society.” That my friend, has always been the plan.

But we are not giving up. We are here to protect the family. Your voice will be heard in Trenton and around the state.

For Family,

Len Deo
Founder

Dear Friend,

On Monday, Family Policy Alliance and 29 of our state allied organizations filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on a critical religious freedom case.

Just before the holidays, you may have heard that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hold an emergency hearing on the consolidated case against the Biden Administration’s vaccine mandate, which is being imposed on employers with more than 100 employees via the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Working quickly, our alliance’s legal team – led in this case by our allied organization in Texas – put together a powerful brief for the nine justices, who will hear the case on Friday. Here is our message to them:

Family Policy Alliance remains deeply committed to advocating for your God-given religious liberty and for settling these issues through the legislative process – just as our Founding Fathers intended. And we are thankful for you and your support that makes possible our advocacy before the highest court in the land.

Standing for the family of believers,

Joseph Kohm

Joseph Kohm, III, Esq.
Director, Public Policy

 

© 2022 Family Policy Alliance. All Rights Reserved.
Originally Published 1/5/22 at familypolicyalliance.com.

 

It’s not often that we hear of government bodies agreeing on a decision. But yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a UNANIMOUS judgement in favor of children and religious freedom.

What happened? Here are the facts.

The case: Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

Catholic Social Services (CSS) is a longstanding faith-based nonprofit that serves the foster children of Philadelphia. They exist to help children in need, particularly hard-to-place children, find forever homes. They have many guidelines for the families who are receiving children in their homes – including that there be a married mom and dad in the home.

Their beliefs are essential to their identity and cannot be separated from their work. But the city of Philadelphia thought otherwise.

When the city discovered CSS’s beliefs about marriage, they forced the organization to make a decision: change your beliefs, or the city will stop contracting with you.

CSS chose a third option: seek legal help.

The organization rightly recognized that this was a violation of their constitutionally protected religious freedom, and – represented by our friends at Becket Law – they took that argument to court.

After years of litigation, Catholic Social Services ultimately got their day in court before the U.S. Supreme Court last year. And today, the Justices issued their verdict: Philadelphia violated CSS’s religious freedom.

The implications: good news for children and religious freedom

This decision is good news not only for CSS, but for the many children they serve. When CSS is allowed to participate in Philadelphia’s foster care system, it not only offers a distinctly Christian option, but also increases the sheer number of foster providers – and that matters greatly.

In the U.S., more than 400,000 children in the foster system are waiting for homes. Around 4% of children are adopted within a year of entering foster care, and 85% of children in foster care have at least two placements in their first 12 months. In fact, the foster crisis is so extreme that some states are hosting foster children in hotels and office buildings because there is nowhere else to place them.

Today’s decision is a strong affirmation that foster homes like Catholic Social Services should be able to place children in loving homes while abiding by their religious convictions. Religious freedom is a precious gift afforded to all Americans. The belief that children should be in homes with a married mother and father should not be punished — and the Court affirmed that today.

The decision also reminds us of why the federal Equality Act – which could be up for a vote anytime in the Senate – is unworkable and inadvisable. The Act would redefine “sex” to include a person’s self-declared “sexual orientation and gender identity” throughout federal civil rights law. By doing that, the Act could be used to force foster and adoption agencies into similar dilemmas to Catholic Social Services – something that that the entire Supreme Court rejected today. The Equality Act would threaten religious freedom and the wellbeing of children and must be rejected.

We applaud today’s Supreme Court decision and are thankful for the work of Becket Law representing Catholic Social Services!

Joyfully,

Meridian Baldacci
Policy and Communications Strategist

 

P.S. Want to speak out against the Equality Act? Send a message to your Senator now.

“Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.” -1 Peter 2:16

 

Dear Friends—

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has only been on the high bench for a month and half; and yet, she has already made her mark on history by voting to uphold the religious freedom in America.

On the eve of Thanksgiving, Justice Barrett was the deciding vote in a narrow 5-4 decision which temporarily blocked New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s attendance limits in houses of worship. In the majority opinion, Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett ruled that limiting churches, synagogues, and mosques to just 10 to 25 worshippers violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

“Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch strongly denounced the disparate treatment between houses of worship and other “essential businesses,” noting that while a large New York synagogue in the red zone would be capped at just 10 people, a small liquor store or bicycle shop in the same red zone would have no such restriction. Justice Gorsuch concluded:

“It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques.”

The impact of Judge Barrett’s deciding vote and the high court’s decision in this case quickly rippled from one coast to another – from New York to California. On December 3rd, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a federal judge’s ruling that allowed the State of California to impose harsher restrictions on worship services than comparable secular activities. The restrictions in California remain in place. However, they may not stand when the federal judge applies the new precedent.

Though questions remain about the government’s power to limit constitutional rights during a pandemic, the U.S. Supreme Court has now sent a clear message to our nation’s governors. Though the state may burden the free exercise of religion to further a compelling government interest (e.g. mitigating the spread of COVID), the state may only do so using the least restrictive means available. And under no circumstance should houses of worship be slapped with more severe restrictions than secular businesses, gatherings, and/or activities.

To all the pastors, ministry leaders, and volunteers working faithfully each week to prepare and offer a safe worship environment for your congregants – thank you! As my pastor recently shared, “It is our job to minister to the things that a vaccine cannot help…and to point people to the truth and hope we have in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

To that end, we press on!

Pastor Vince Torres
President & Executive Director

 

P.S. Our $25,000 year-end challenge grant is well underway, and thanks to the generosity of ministry partners like you, we are very close to meeting our goal. As of today, we have raised $20,827.

If you have not yet given, would you please consider helping us raise the remaining $4,173 today by sending a gift of $50, $100, $250, or $500?

Thank you for your faithful prayers and support!

 

Today was an exciting day on Capitol Hill.  After 30 hours of debate – including a Sunday overnight session – the Senate voted 52-48 to confirm Amy Coney Barrett as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Find out how your state’s two senators voted below.

As my colleagues and I put it in our recent op-ed, Barrett is a unicorn to the Left but the future to us.  A woman isn’t supposed to achieve great professional success and raise a large family, and a person of faith isn’t supposed to earn acclaim from legal scholars of every political persuasion and land a seat on the highest court in the land, right?  Wrong.  As Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said, Barrett has not “punch[ed] through a glass ceiling, but a reinforced concrete barrier.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett personifies the extraordinary capability of a woman and the hope of America at this pivotal time in our nation’s history.

The addition of a young, originalist justice to the Supreme Court indeed gives Americans of faith and pro-life values specific hope for the potential undoing of Roe v. Wade..  Barrett’s confirmation also provides optimism for the future of religious freedom in our country and the ability of people of faith to exercise their deeply held beliefs without reprisal.

It is expected that Justice Barrett will sit on the bench next Wednesday (the day after Election Day) to hear oral arguments in the case of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.  This landmark case centers on two foster care moms – Sharonell Fulton and Toni Simms-Busch – and the City of Philadelphia. In 2018, the city ended its partnership with Catholic Social Services because the agency would not bow to the city’s demands to change its religious practices and place children with same-sex couples.  Sharonell and Toni are both single women of color who have been called to help at-risk children break the cycle of foster care, but today their homes sit empty.  They have fostered more than 45 kids between them, and are more than willing to continue this heroic work if the agency that aligns with their faith and values – Catholic Social Services – is allowed to reopen with its mission intact.

In addition to the likelihood of the current Supreme Court affirming laws to protect human life and religious liberty, there is also great reason to hope the addition of Amy Coney Barrett will usher in a  return to the Court’s proper role of interpreting laws and the Constitution as written.  If the judiciary fulfills its Constitutional mandate instead of legislating from the bench, pro-family, pro-life and pro-religious freedom Americans can expect to be pleased with the outcome.

Even as we celebrate the positive potential outcomes of Justice Barrett’s confirmation, we remain cautious given the unknown outcome of next week’s election.  It is wise to acknowledge that the significant gains made possible by the newest Supreme Court justice could be undone if the next president of the United States determines to “pack the court.”  Joe Biden has said we’ll “find out after [he’s] elected” what he thinks about court packing.  He’s also voiced his intention to assemble a commission to research the issue.  These messages provide no comfort to pro-life Americans who know Biden’s position on abortion includes support for codifying Roe v. Wade and if given a chance, will appoint pro-abortion, activist judges.  The threat this poses intensifies with the possibility of Democrat leadership growing the number of justices on the Supreme Court with the intention to make it a super-legislature.

Meanwhile, we know President Trump’s record of federal court nominations.  He has appointed more than 200 jurists – including three Supreme Court justices – to the federal bench who are committed to interpreting the law and Constitution faithfully.  Appreciation is due to President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and all senators who have voted to confirm these individuals – and Justice Amy Coney Barrett in particular.

As we look expectantly to the future of the federal judiciary, we do so prayerfully and hopefully as Election 2020 nears.

Sincerely,

Amanda Banks
External Relations Manager

 

Here’s how your state’s 2 Senators voted on confirming Justice Amy Coney Barrett:

Alabama Vote Montana Vote
Jones, Doug – D N Daines, Steve – R Y
Shelby, Richard – R Y Tester, Jon – D N
Alaska Nebraska
Murkowski, Lisa – R Y Fischer, Deb – D N
Sullivan, Dan – R Y Sasse, Ben – R Y
Arizona Nevada
McSally, Martha – R Y Cortez Masto, Catherine – D N
Sinema, Krysten – D N Rosen, Jacky – D N
Arkansas New Hampshire
Boozman, John – R Y Hassan, Margaret Wood – D N
Cotton, Tom – R Y Shaheen, Jeanne – D N
California New Jersey
Feinstein, Dianne – D N Booker, Cory – D N
Harris, Kamala – D N Menendez, Bob – D N
Colorado New Mexico
Bennet, Michael – D N Heinrich, Martin – D N
Gardner, Cory – R Y Udall, Tom – D N
Connecticut New York
Blumenthal, Richard – D N Gillibrand, Kirsten – D N
Murphy, Christopher – D N Schumer, Charles – D N
Delaware North Carolina
Carper, Thomas – D N Burr, Richard – R Y
Coons, Christopher – D N Tillis, Thom – R Y
Florida North Dakota
Rubio, Marco – R Y Cramer, Kevin – R Y
Scott, Rick – R Y Hoeven, John – R Y
 Georgia Ohio
Loeffler, Kelly – R Y Brown Sherrod – D N
Perdue, David – R Y Portman, Rob – R Y
Hawaii Oklahoma
Hirono, Mazie – D N Inhofe, James – R Y
Schatz, Brian – D N Lankford, James – R Y
Idaho Oregon
Crapo, Mike – R Y Merkley, Jeff – D N
Risch, James – R Y Wyden, Ron – D N
Illinois Pennsylvania
Duckworth, Tammy – D N Casey, Robert – D N
Durbin, Richard – D N Toomey, Patrick – R Y
Indiana Rhode Island
Braun, Mike – R Y Reed, Jack – R Y
Young, Todd – R Y Whitehouse, Sheldon – D N
Iowa South Carolina
Ernst, Joni – R Y Graham, Lindsey – R Y
Grassley, Chuck – R Y Scott, Tim – R Y
Kansas South Dakota
Moran, Jerry – R Y Rounds, Mike – R Y
Robert, Pat – R Y Thune, John – R Y
Kentucky Tennessee
McConnell, Mitch – R Y Alexander, Lamar – R Y
Paul, Rand – R Y Blackburn, Marsha – R Y
 Louisiana Texas
Cassidy, Bill – R Y Cornyn, John – R Y
Kennedy, John – R Y Cruz, Ted – R Y
Maine Utah
Collins, Susan – R N Lee, Mike – R Y
King, Angus – I N Romney, Mitt – R Y
Maryland Vermont
Cardin, Benjamin – D N Leahy, Patrick – D N
Van Hollen, Chris – D N Sander, Bernie – I N
Massachusetts Virginia
Markey, Edward – D N Kaine, Tom – D N
Warren, Elizabeth – D N Warner, Mark – D N
Michigan Washington
Peters, Gary – D N Cantwell, Maria – D N
Stabenow, Debbie – D N Murray, Patty – D N
Minnesota West Virginia
Klobuchar, Amy – D N Capito, Shelly Moore – R Y
Smith, Tina – D N Manchin, Joe – D N
Mississippi Wisconsin
Hyde-Smith, Cindy – R Y Baldwin, Tammy – D N
Wicker, Roger – R Y Johnson, Ron – R Y
Missouri Wyoming
Blunt, Roy – R Y Barasso, John – R Y
Hawley, Josh – R Y Enzi, Michael – R Y