With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Amendment challenges to ballot-access restrictions and recognizing that when state election laws impose “reasonable” content-neutral ballot-access restrictions “the State’s important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify the restrictions” (quotation omitted)). Applying this standard, courts have uniformly concluded that the public interests advanced by resign-to-run laws justify any temporary and content-neutral restriction affecting candidates and voters. See, e.g., Clements, 457 U.S. at 971 (observing that rejection of claimants’ equal-protection claim also “disposes” of their related argument that Texas resign-to-run clause violates First Amendment and characterizing claimants’ “First Amendment interests in candidacy” as “insignificant”); Morial, 565 F.2d at 302 (<HOLDING>); Worthy, 142 F. Supp. 2d at 816-18 (holding

A: holding that when a judicial office is created by legislative act or municipal ordinance  the office is regarded as a de facto office until the act or ordinance is declared invalid
B: holding that any impairment of candidates and voters first amendment interests was not sufficiently grievous to invalidate louisiana statute requiring judge to resign office before becoming candidate for nonjudicial office
C: holding that an employee had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office even though the papers seized from the office were not the property of the employee
D: holding that an outofstate attorney paying rent for a desk in an attorneys instate office had satisfied the office requirement
B.