In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Clause. ¶ 13. Respondent’s main interest in this case is his right to run for elected office. In general, the federal courts have declined to hold that the right to run for elective office is “fundamental,” a position that was applied in the seminal Clements decision. There, a plurality of the high court held that “[f]ar from recognizing candidacy as a fundamental right, we have held that the existence of barriers to a candidate’s access to the ballot does not of itself compel close scrutiny.” 457 U.S. at 963 405, 420 (W. Va. 2000) (concluding that constitutional provision forcing judges to vacate office before running for nonjudicial office was supported by “State’s compelling and permissible interest”); Wagner v. Milwaukee County Election Comm’n, 2003 WI 103, ¶ 78, 666 N.W.2d 816 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 16. Respondent’s constitutional arguments 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights (B) holding right to testify was federal constitutional right (C) holding that states legitimate interests in enacting constitutional provision prohibiting judges from holding other public office far outweigh the burdens put upon the petitioners right to be a candidate for office (D) holding that a school superintendent does not have a constitutional right to actually hold his position and execute the duties of the office (E) holding constitutional provision selfexecuting if it grants right that can be put into operation without further legislative action
recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights

to support the jury’s verdict. The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court to consider the appellant’s remaining point of error. WOMACK, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which KELLER, P.J., and MEYERS, J., joined. COCHRAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which JOHNSON and HOLCOMB, JJ., joined. 1 . Nicotinamide is a substance commonly used as a controlled substance additive. 2 . We have held that the State is no longer required to show what amount of a controlled substance and what amount of an adulterant or dilutant make up a mixture for purposes of possession of a controlled substance. Melton v. State, 120 S.W.3d 339, 344 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). 3 . See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Seals v. State, No. 05-03-01105-CR, slip 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a reviewing court must determine whether viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged (B) holding that when conducting a legal sufficiency review the reviewing court should view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt (C) holding that when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a state criminal conviction the relevant question under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (D) holding that in evaluating sufficiency of the evidence in habeas corpus petitions we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (E) holding that on a review of the sufficiency of the evidence the court determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt
holding that a reviewing court must determine whether viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged

jurisdiction to exercise its discretion to treat the matter before it as a petition for a writ of certiorari. See, e.g., In re Temporary Custody of Five Minors, 105 Nev. 441, 777 P.2d 901 (1989). In light of the far reaching consequences of the issues presented, we are confident the district court would have exercised that discretion for the same reasons we have exercised our discretion to review the instant original petition. 3 Nev. Const, art. 6, § 8. 4 NRS 4.370(3). 5 State of Nevada v. Justice Court, 112 Nev 803, 919 P.2d 401 (1996). 6 See generally NCJC Canon 2. 7 Nev. Const, art. 6, § 8; NRS 4.370(3). 8 NRS 189.120; State v. Shade, 110 Nev. 57, 867 P.2d 393 (1994). 9 See Parsons v. State, 116 Nev. 928, 937, n.8, 10 P.3d 836, 841-42 n.8 (2000). 10 40 Nev. 228, 161 P. 737 (1916) (<HOLDING>). 11 106 Nev. 203, 789 P.2d 584 (1990) (holding 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a city liable for the unconstitutional firing of two clerks by a municipal judge when it was clear the city had delegated to him final administrative authority over employment matters (B) holding that a sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court (C) holding that the city had standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute allowing certain communities within the same county as the city to incorporate as towns without the citys consent (D) holding that a municipal court had no constitutional or statutory authority to rule on the legality and constitutionality of a tax imposed on attorneys practicing within the city limits (E) holding that a blakely challenge fell within the defendants waiver of his right to appeal the constitutionality or legality of the guidelines

holding a city liable for the unconstitutional firing of two clerks by a municipal judge when it was clear the city had delegated to him final administrative authority over employment matters