With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the store in question, that store was not subject to Stranahan’s right to solicit signatures under Article IV, section 1. Id. at 497 (Landau, J., dissenting). Fred Meyer petitioned for review, contending, inter alia, that Article IV, section 1, does not create a right to solicit signatures for initiative petitions on private property and, consequently, that Whiffen II was decided incorrectly and should be overruled. We allowed review to consider that issue. We first note that, before this court’s decision in Whiffen II, there had been a long history of federal constitutional litigation pitting the rights of persons engaging in political activity, such as petitioning, against the rights of private property owners. See Marsh v. Alabama, 326 US 501, 505-09, 66 S Ct 276, 90 L Ed 265 (1946) (<HOLDING>); Food Employees v. Logan Plaza, Inc., 391 US

A: holding that jehovahs witness who had been convicted of trespassing after refusing to stop distributing religious literature on sidewalk of company town could not be denied the right to express her freedom of religion and freedom of the press under the first amendment to the united states constitution simply because a single company held legal title to the entire town
B: holding defendant to a preference action has a right to a jury trial pursuant to the seventh amendment of the united states constitution but that right can be waived by filing a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings
C: holding that the right to associate with others as a military company is not a privilege of citizens of the united states
D: holding a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the united states to state a claim under  1983
A.