With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the State on all counts. Appellants timely appealed, asking us to reverse the judgment of the district court and to order the State to purge all records of Appellants’ PRA disclosures. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1218 (9th Cir.2007). We review questions of justiciability de novo. Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 896 (9th Cir.2013). DISCUSSION I. Facial Challenges Appellants assert that the PRA’s $100 reporting threshold and “post-election reporting requirements” are facially unconstitutional in the context of ballot initiatives. Our decision in Family PAC v. McKenna directly precludes Appellants’ challenge to the $100 threshold. 685 F.3d 800, 809-11 (9th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Appellants’ facial challenge to the

A: holding that 25 and 100 contribution disclosure thresholds survive exacting scrutiny in the context of ballot initiatives
B: recognizing scrutiny on statutory grounds stated in  10a and scrutiny for whether the award evinces a manifest disregard of applicable law
C: holding that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review for racial classifications even in the prison context
D: holding that strict scrutiny applies
A.