With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". before the election, has standing to pursue this case. Because Goode has standing and his coplaintiff, Mclnnish, alleges the same claims as Goode, I need not address whether Mclnnish also has standing. See Watt v. Energy Action Educ. Found., 454 U.S. 151, 160, 102 S.Ct. 205, 70 L.Ed.2d 309 (1981) (“Because we find [one plaintiff] has standing, we do not consider the standing of the other plaintiffs.”); Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 264 & n. 9, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977) (noting that “[bjecause of. the presence of [one] plaintiff [who has demonstrated standing], we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit”); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 12, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (<HOLDING>). 3. Timeliness “ ‘Objections relating to

A: holding that the term in fact within the context of the exclusion here should be read to require either a final adjudication including a judicial adjudication or at a minimum at least some evidentiary proof
B: holding that case was justiciable when at least some of the appellants have a sufficient personal stake  in its adjudication
C: recognizing the constitutionality of at least some amount of political gerrymandering
D: holding that convictions under  111 require at least some form of assault
B.