With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". We have drawn no distinction between the protections offered by Article II, Section 4 of the Montana Constitution and those offered by the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution when analyzing alleged discrimination between similarly situated taxpayers. Roosevelt v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 1999 MT 30, ¶¶ 16-46, 293 Mont. 240, ¶¶ 16-46, 975 P.2d 295, ¶¶ 16-46; Kottel v. State, 2002 MT 278, ¶ 47, 312 Mont. 387, ¶ 47, 60 P.3d 403, ¶ 47; Montana Dept. of Revenue v. Barron, 245 Mont. 100, 111, 799 P.2d 533, 540 (1990); see also 71 Am. Jur. 2d § 340 (2007) (explaining that there is nothing in the unit method of valuation that is inherently opposed to either the federal or the various state constitutions); Beaver County v. Wiltel, Inc., 995 P.2d 602, ¶¶ 24-26 (Utah 2000) (<HOLDING>). ¶30 Most of PPLM’s arguments amount to an

A: holding that state outdoor recreational immunity statute did not violate equal protection clause of united states constitution under rationalbasis test
B: holding that the multicounty signature requirement for initiatives violated the uniform operation of laws clause and the federal equal protection clause
C: holding that central assessment by the unit method of valuation did not violate the equal protection clause of the united states constitution or the uniform operation of laws provision in the utah constitution
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
C.