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]: voters of the political subdivision or subdivisions whose combined territory composes the territory of a district shall be qualified voters of the district. The nomination and election shall be by separate nonpartisan ballot. The term of each member of the board thus elected shall be six years and until his successor is elected and qualified. (Emphasis added.) No definition of a "qualified voter" is provided in SDCL Chapter 49-36. Thus, we must turn to the definition of "voter" as provided under SDCL Title 12, and the South Dakota Constitution as to what qualifies a person as a "voter" within the meaning of Chapter 49-36. See SDCL 12-1-1. [44.] Our state affords great protection to a citizen's voting franchise. SD Const, art. 6, 19; Duffy v. Mortenson, 497 N.W.2d 437, 439 (S.D.1993) (<HOLDING>). A court must strictly adhere to the
Holding statements: (A) holding that a fair referendum assuring the equal right to vote under 101a1 includes the right of members to have the vote scheduled at a time when they can exercise their vote and the right to be free from intimidation or fear of reprisal (B) holding constitutional a tax on a private citizens interest in housing on government property received as part of the private citizens compensation (C) holding it is not the policy of the state of south dakota to disenfranchise its citizens of their constitutional right to vote (D) recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state (E) holding that the right to vote is fundamental
[A]: (C)

[Q]: is correct. We will also assume that the court's erro umed error prejudiced him is that other evidence supports the finding that he was a manager or supervisor of the conspiracy. In the district court, Vasquez did not object to the PSR's statement that he "recruited Wornick and Sella" into the conspiracy. Although the district court did not explicitly find that Vasquez recruited two of his co-conspirators, "[i]t is the law of this circuit that a failure to object to allegations of fact in a[PSR] admits those facts for sentencing purposes." United States v. Wade, 458 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir.2006). And we have held many times that a defendant's recruitment of co-conspirators supports a 3B1.1 enhancement. See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 446 F.3d 1348, 1355 n. 2 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270, 1304
Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the defendant was an organizer leader manager or supervisor under 3bllc in part because the defendant actively recruited two individuals to transport drugs (B) holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the defendant was a manager or supervisor under 3bllb in part because he recruited accomplices (C) holding that trial court did not err (D) holding that a trial court did not clearly err in finding that an attorney fees clause materially altered a contract (E) holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the defendant was an organizer or leader under 3blla in part because he recruited coconspirators
[A]: (E)

[Q]: suggestive."); Greenwood, supra note 4, 659 A.2d at 828 ("[I]f the identification procedures are not unduly suggestive, the details of those procedures are admissible and no reliability finding is necessary"). In short: if no undue suggestivity, no suppressionperiodwithout regard to reliability. To the extent that rulings on sugges-tivity and reliability are factual, we are bound by the trial court's findings if they are supported by the evidence and accord with the law. See Stewart v. United States, 490 A.2d 619, 623 (D.C.1985). On the other hand, because suggestivity and reliability ultimately determine the issue of admissibilitya question of lawthey are both better characterized as mixed questions of fact and law. Cf. Funchess v. United States, 677 A.2d 1019, 1020 (D.C.1996) (<HOLDING>). Here, of course, the trial court failed to
Holding statements: (A) holding the question of necessity is one of mixed law and fact and accordingly one for the fact finder in the ordinary case (B) holding that an error pertaining to a mixed question of law and fact under state law is not cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding (C) holding that joint employment determination was a complex mixed question of law and fact properly determined by jury (D) holding that probable cause determination presents a mixed question of law and fact (E) holding the manifest error standard of review is the proper standard to be applied to the mixed question of law and fact presented by a determination of whether a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm
[A]:
(D)