Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): omitted); see also Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 143 (1972) (observing that the fact a state sets regulations “tending to limit the field of candidates from which voters might choose . . . does not of itself compel close scrutiny”). Thus, with the exception of classifications based on wealth or minor-party status, Clements held that ballot-access restrictions are subject to a general balancing test “involv[ing] a consideration of the facts and circumstances behind the law, the interests the State seeks to protect by placing restrictions on candidacy, and the nature of the interests of those who may be burdened by the restrictions.” 457 U.S. at 963. ¶ 14. Clements applied the balancing test to a resign-to-run restriction contained in the Texas constitution and applicable wh (<HOLDING>); State ex rel. Carenbauer v. Hechler, 542 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that resigntorun provision of maine judicial code of conduct does not violate the guarantees of equal protection freedom of speech or freedom of association in either the maine or united states constitutions (B) holding that a twoyear suspension of visitation privileges did not violate either the first amendments right to freedom of association (C) holding that federal lobbying act does not violate lobbyists constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and petitioning the government (D) holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection (E) holding that a nocontact order did not violate the right to freedom of association
Output (English): holding that a nocontact order did not violate the right to freedom of association