With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". This option, however, is available to all candidates challenging ballot-access requirements, yet that has hardly stopped the Supreme Court from holding that political candidates have “ample standing” to bring such challenges. Storer, 415 U.S. at 738 n. 9, 94 S.Ct. 1274. Similarly, Nix could avoid the alleged electoral disadvantages of the partisan system only by running as a Democrat. But given Nix’s First Amendment right to freedom of association, that option cannot possibly provide a basis for depriving him of standing. See Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968) (explaining that the First Amendment protects “the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs”); see also Storer, 415 U.S. at 738 n. 9, 745-46, 94 S.Ct. 1274 (<HOLDING>). As a second line of defense, the Attorney

A: holding that candidates had ample standing to challenge ballotaccess requirements
B: holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract
C: recognizing that standing is an essential component of our appellate jurisdiction and permitting party to appeal only after determining that they had met the requirements of article iii standing
D: holding that candidates had standing to challenge requirements for appearing on the generalelection ballot as independents even though they could have chosen to run in a party primary
D.