Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the standard for evaluating such claims requires a balancing of the “character and magnitude” of the rights affected against the state interests advanced by the rule. Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992) (reaffirming cases holding that a “flexible standard” governs Fi state’s interests in prohibiting sitting judges from running for nonjudicial office justified temporary inability of voters to choose specific candidate); Adams v. Supreme Court of Pa., 502 F. Supp. 1282, 1292 (M.D. Pa. 1980) (concluding that standard of judicial conduct requiring sitting judges to resign upon becoming candidate for nonjudicial office did not violate First Amendment rights of judge in light of “important state interests” served by rule); In re Buckson, 610 A.2d 203, 224 (Del. 1992) . In view of the substantial interests
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the judges restriction of the class was not an abuse of discretion
B. holding that resigntorun requirement in delaware judges code of judicial conduct did not violate first amendment interests of judges
C. holding that judges have immunity from suit for judicial acts
D. holding the announce clause of minnesotas code of judicial conduct was not narrowly tailored because it was woefully underinclusive prohibiting announcements by judges and wouldbe judges only at certain times and in certain forms
E. holding that bankruptcy judges are not bound by appellate ruhngs of single district judges even those from their own district
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.