With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on First Amendment grounds, as applied to a party wishing to finance candidate running in its own primary election). Moreover, as we have noted, a party may recruit its own candidates and publicly endorse them, and it may speak out against candidates it disfavors. In short, New York’s political parties possess such large financial and institutional advantages over any given challenger that they hardly need to exclude qualified candidates and voters in order to shape the course of their association. The next state interest that defendants proffer — guarding against party raiding — is compelling in its own right. See Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581, 596, 125 S.Ct. 2029, 161 L.Ed.2d 920 (2005); cf. Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 577, 120 S.Ct. 2402, 147 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Defendants urge that the current scheme

A: holding that a political party chairman had standing to appeal a district court decision striking down state election laws even though the state board of elections had decided against appealing
B: holding that state may not compel political parties to allow nonmembers to vote in primary elections
C: holding that the right to vote is fundamental
D: holding that a state may not condition voting in state elections on payment of a tax
B.