With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". denial of reh'g by 119 Nev. 460, 76 P.3d 22 (2003), cert. denied sub nom., Angle v. Guinn, 541 U.S. 957, 124 S.Ct. 1662, 158 L.Ed.2d 392 (2004)). 13 . See Wash. Rev.Code § 43.135.035. 14 . See FHR. Res. 6, 104th Cong. (1995), 141 Cone. Rec. 462, 463 (1995) (adding subsections (c) and (d) to House Rule XXI(5)). 15 . Skaggs v. Carle, 110 F.3d 831, 833 (D.C.Cir.1997). 16 . Id. at 837. 17 . 141 Cone. Rec. 29463, 29476-77 (1995) (Speaker Pro Tempore rules that waiving super-majority rule only requires a majority). 18 . Skaggs, 110 F.3d at $47 (Edwards, C.J., dissenting) (expressing view that House Rule XXXI(5)(c) violated the presentment clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, cl. 2). 19 . See, eg., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 538-39, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969) (<HOLDING>); Gerberding v. Munro, 134 Wash.2d 188, 949

A: holding that title vii provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment
B: holding that specific wording of constitutional qualifications clause invalidated resigntorun statute
C: recognizing that the us constitutions qualifications clause provides an exclusive list of qualifications for legislators notwithstanding its negative phrasing
D: holding that the remedies are exclusive
C.