Task: Text Completion
Input (English): 1179 n. 7 (8th Cir.1990) (“While [the McBroom factors cited in Baer] may have been relevant and sufficient in Baer to require the state to permit party designation, the same factors might not be relevant in a different context.... We too [having just cited this Court’s subsequent decision in Rainbow Coalition ] reject these factors as the exclusive or even necessarily the most reliable, indicators of the state registration procedure's constitutionality.”), with Atherton v. Ward, 22 F.Supp.2d 1265, 1267-68 (W.D.Okla.1998) (noting that it was "bound by ... Baer" and concluding that there was "no difference in a constitutional sense between Oldahoma law and the Colorado law at issue in Baer"). See also Green Party of N.Y. v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, 389 F.3d 411, 422 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). 6 . Our decision in Rainbow Coalition of 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the states interest in preventing deception of consumers (B) holding that the governor did not have to obtain the consent of the senate for the appointment of a candidate when the first candidate had been rejected by the senate the senate was not in session at the time that the second candidate was appointed and because the legislature which created and therefore controlled the office did not require by statute that the governor seek the senates approval in those circumstances (C) recognizing that baer did not state a universal brightline rule for drawing the line with frivolous party registration but like baer holding that the ability to meet the requirements for placing a candidate on the statewide ballot is enough of an indication of support to overcome the states interest in preventing voter confusion (D) holding that the government interest in preventing crime is compelling (E) holding that an oklahoma law placing democratic party candidates in the highest ballot positions violated the equal protection clause
Output (English): (C)