With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to the ballot language was brought by Appellants in the Commonwealth Court, and this Court assumed extraordinary jurisdiction in Sprague I, culminating in a per curiam order from this Court. As the Court was deadlocked—with three Justices concluding Appellants were correct in their claim that the ballot language was misleading and three Justices concluding they were not—we could agree on only one thing, the following order: AND NOW, this 2nd day of September, 2016, the Court being evenly divided in its determination as to which parties are entitled to the grant of summary relief, this Court is without authority to grant relief and the status quo of the matter prior to the filing of the lawsuit is maintained. See Creamer v. Twelve Common Pleas Judges, 443 Pa. 484, 281 A.2d 57 (1971) (<HOLDING>). Sprague I (per curiam order). After this

A: holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court
B: holding that the district court has broad authority to take jurisdiction over a matter even when that matter is not brought by a real party in interest
C: holding that where this court was evenly divided in a kings bench original jurisdiction matter challenging gubernatorial appointments to judicial vacancies the appropriate disposition was to enter a per curiam order noting that the requested relief could not be granted thereby maintaining the status quo of the matter
D: holding that an order issued by the pennsylvania supreme court in which it refused to exercise its kings bench jurisdiction to overturn gag orders issued by a lower state court did not implicitly reject the plaintiffs claim that the gag orders violated the first amendment as pennsylvania law authorized the pennsylvania supreme court to decline to exercise its kings bench jurisdiction where the case did not present an issue of immediate public importance
C.