With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as they neared the end of their term, was relatively minimal. Id. at 971-72. Accordingly, the Court had no difficulty upholding the resign-to-run law at issue. Id. at 972-73. ¶ 15. Numerous courts have since adopted and applied the Clements balancing test to uphold similar resign-to-run provisions, generally concluding that the state’s interests substantially outweighed the limited impact on office seekers forced to run for one office at a time. See, e.g., Joyner v. Mofford, 706 F.2d 1523, 1532 (9th Cir. 1983) (rejecting equal-protection challenge to Arizona Constitution resign-to-run clause and finding that it “advances substantial and important state interests, while placing a minimal burden on potential candidates”); Worthy v. Michigan, 142 F. Supp. 2d 806, 815 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (<HOLDING>); Fasi v. Cayetano, 752 F. Supp. 942, 946-54

A: holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection
B: holding that the cap does not violate equal protection
C: holding that michigan rule barring sitting judges from nonjudicial offices did not violate equal protection
D: holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection
C.