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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Q: analysis and did not provide any guidance as to its future implications.... ”); Schafer, 598 N.E.2d at 553 (“Sturrup is out of the mainstream of caselaw on equal protection analysis_(citation omitted));. Robbins, 941 F.Supp. at 793 (“Federal equal protection ‘rational basis’ analysis does not contain an ‘overbroad’ component. Rather, high school transfer rules, like the rule in question, are valid and enforceable.” (citations omitted)); Jordan, 813 F.Supp. at 1381 (refusing to apply Sturrup overbreadth scrutiny and writing “Indiana’s practice of subjecting equal protection and procedural due process claims to ‘over 75 (N.D.Ill.1978) (finding Illinois version of Transfer Rule did not violate equal protection); Simkins v. S.D. High Sch. Activities Ass’n, 434 N.W.2d 367 (S.D.1989) (<HOLDING>); Chabert v. La. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 323 
 Holding statements: (A) holding illinois high school associations version of the transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection (B) holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection (C) holding that the cap does not violate equal protection (D) holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection (E) holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection as rule was uniformly applied not arbitrary and rationally related to legitimate government interest

A: (B)
****
Q: for abuse of discretion, while its application of legal precepts in determining that any delay was excusable is reviewed under a plenary standard). 17 . The Melendez court issued an order granting the petition on October 15, 2002, giving the Election Division Director three weeks to make any necessary changes. 18 . See supra note 8, at 239, 919 A.2d at 1280. 19 . This Court has long recognized the importance of the elective franchise. See Maryland Green Party v. State Board of Elections, 377 Md. 127, 150, 832 A.2d 214, 228 (2003) (stating that Article 7 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights "has been held to be even more protective of rights of political participation than the provisions of the federal Constitution”); Munsell v. Hennegan, 182 Md. 15, 22, 31 A.2d 640, 644 (1943) (<HOLDING>); Kemp v. Owens, 76 Md. 235, 241, 24 A. 606, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the potential harm caused to uocava voters far outweighed the burden placed upon the state because of the states legally mandated obligation to provide uocava voters the ability to vote (B) recognizing the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs and the right of qualified voters regardless of their political persuasion to cast their votes effectively (C) holding that electors should have the fullest opportunity to vote for candidates of any political party and any restrictions that are destructive of freedom of choice by voters will not be upheld (D) holding that the right to vote is fundamental (E) holding that state may not compel political party to allow nonmembers to vote in its primary elections

A: (C)
****
Q: setting forth only the BAP’s judgment. Accordingly, by operation of our rules of appellate procedure, the Tau-moepeaus had 180 days within which to file their notice of appeal and their notice, received by the BAP clerk on October 2, 2006, fell well within this period. To be sure, the separate document rule is a technical one. But, as its name implies, it generally requires that judgment be entered in a separate document, one that is “not made part of the opinion and order” of the court. Mondragon v. Thompson, 519 F.3d 1078, 1082 (10th Cir.2008). A combined document denominated an “Order and Judgment,” containing factual background, legal reasoning, as well as a judgment, generally will not satisfy the rule’s prescription. See, e.g., Clough v. Rush, 959 F.2d 182, 185 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Allison v. Bank One-Denver, 289 F.3d 1223, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding summary judgment order was not a final judgment because it did not dispose of the defendants claim for attorneys fees (B) holding that a district courts combined order and judgment did not satisfy the rule on account of being fifteen pages long and containing detailed legal analysis along with citations in addition to providing for entry of judgment (C) holding that a district courts summary judgment order did not meet rule 58s requirements because it was fifteen pages long and it contained detailed legal analysis and reasoning (D) holding that a district courts marginal order granting summary judgment did not meet the strict requirements of rule 58 because a party may reasonably be confused as to the standing of its ease when a decision is rendered in such an informal manner (E) holding that the rule 12b6 ruling was not a final judgment and did not bind the district court at summary judgment

A:
(C)
****