With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in Ramirez which holds that ex-felons exclusion from not voting does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. 418 U.S. at 56, 94 S.Ct. 2655. Thus, the Court grants summary judgement to the State on Plaintiffs Equal Protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. B. Plaintiffs’ Claim that Felon Disenfranchisement Violates the First Amendment Plaintiffs also contend that the felon disenfranchisement provision violates the First Amendment as well. However, it is clear that the First Amendment does not guarantee felons the right to vote. See Howard, No. 99-2285, 2000 WL 203984, at *2 (“The First Amendment creates no private right of action for seeking reinstatement of previously cancelled voting rights.”); see also, Farrakhan v. Locke, 987 F.Supp. 1304 (E.D.Wash.1997) (<HOLDING>). This Court agrees with the holding of Howard

A: holding that definition of seizure under state constitution differs from that under us constitution
B: holding that to hold the same constitution that specifically recognizes felon disenfranchisement under  2 of the fourteenth amendment but also prohibits disenfranchisement under another amendment would be to interpret the constitution in an inconsistent manner
C: holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution
D: holding that because the due process clause in the federal constitution is applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment the right is also guaranteed to defendants pursuant to the identical provision in article i section 5 of the hawaii constitution
B.