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.

one district required an incumbent Democratic representative to run against an incumbent Republican representative. These pairings of incumbent congressman permitted the creation of an open congressional district in the southeastern part of the Commonwealth. In contrast to its treatment of Democratic incumbents, no Republican congressmen are forced to run against each other. Moreover, Act 1 splits eighty-four local governments, including twenty-five counties, fifty-nine cities, boroughs or townships, as well as forty-one wards. It also splits six voting precincts. II. Analysis A. Population Deviation The United States Constitution requires that each congressional district in a state contain equal population. See Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 18, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has been exceedingly clear
Holding statements: (A) holding that in criminal case a continuous chain of custody need not be proven as long as the evidence as a whole establishes that it is more probable than not that the object introduced is the same as that seized (B) recognizing that a stay is as much a refusal to exercise federal jurisdiction as a dismissal (C) holding as much (D) holding that the law in effect at the time a contract is made is as much a part of the contract as if incorporated therein (E) holding that art i 2 of the constitution requires that as nearly as is practicable one mans vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as anothers
holding that in criminal case a continuous chain of custody need not be proven as long as the evidence as a whole establishes that it is more probable than not that the object introduced is the same as that seized