With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Kimble v. Swackhamer, 439 U.S. 1385, 99 S.Ct. 51, 58 L.Ed.2d 225 (1978), to support this contention. In that case then-Justice Rehnquist, sitting as Circuit Justice, denied an injunction against a non-binding referendum in Nevada about the Equal Rights Amendment. Justice Rehnquist reasoned that the referendum did not alter the Article V process because it only served to advise legislators of the people’s wishes and legislators were free to disregard it. See id. at 1388, 99 S.Ct. 51. However, the Missouri Amendment is far more than an advisory, non-binding show of voters’ opinion on term limits. See, e.g., Moore, 169 F.3d at 1124; Barker, 3 F.Supp.2d at 1093; Gwadosky, 966 F.Supp. at 57; Donovan, 931 S.W.2d at 125-26; Petition No. m, 930 P.2d at 192-93. But see Simpson, 130 Idaho at 613 (<HOLDING>). By its own terms, the. Missouri Amendment

A: holding that without the ballot labels the term limit initiative is nonbinding and thus permissible under kimble
B: holding that the mere use of the term settlement offer is permissible and indeed desirable in the course of resolving debts
C: holding that no discovery is permissible in similar circumstances
D: holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance
A.