With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The extreme overinclu-siveness and underinclusiveness of the statute makes the relationship between the classification and the legislative purpose of keeping sex offenders from having access to children arbitrary; therefore, the statute does not withstand review under the rational basis test we have developed under the Iowa Constitution. See Racing Ass’n of Cent. Iowa, 675 N.W.2d at 10 (finding the legislative purpose behind a taxation provision cannot withstand rational basis review because of the extreme degrees of overinclusion and underinclusion); Bierkamp, 293 N.W.2d at 584 (finding the Iowa guest statute does not rationally further the legitimate state purpose of preventing collusive recoveries from insurance companies); Fed. Land Bank v. Arnold, 426 N.W.2d 153, 157 (Iowa 1988) (<HOLDING>); Chicago & N.W. Ry. v. Fachman, 255 Iowa 989,

A: holding that the pslra does not mandate nor does it suggest that a court approved lead plaintiff must republish a notice of the purported class after an amended complaint is filed in cases where amended complaints encompassed the same claims and securities but different class periods courts have generally found that the efficiency of republication outweighs the marginal fairness gains of notifying class members of an extended class period 
B: recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members
C: holding that a district of columbia consumer protection statute that authorized representative actions and did not reference class action requirements or mandate class certification was a separate and distinct procedural vehicle from a class action and thus did not constitute a class action under cafa
D: holding discrimination in redemption periods violated the equal protection clause where class membership did not correlate with purported class distinctions drawn by legislature
D.