Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of discussion of discriminatory intent based upon race. The provision of 1968 did more than reflect mere “cosmetic” changes but contained substantially revisions to the 1885 law. The framers and ratifiers of the 1968 Constitution deliberately chose to change the prohibition on voting by felons in order to achieve a different and new result in terms of the persons who would be disqualified. The 1968 Constitution altered Article VI, Section 4, of the 1885 Constitution to categorically disqualify felons not only from voting but also from holding office. Additionally, it changed Article VI, Section 5, of the 1885 Constitution by deleting specific crimes that would have triggered disqualification included some misdemeanors. See, e.g., State ex rel. Jordan v. Buckman, 18 Fla. 267 (1881) . Thus, the legislature in 1986 disqualified a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding without the benefit of argument by the parties that a petty larceny conviction was properly admitted for impeachment purposes
B. holding misdemeanor conviction for petty larceny triggered disenfranchisement
C. holding alabamas disenfranchisement for commission of petty crime or misdemeanor provision unconstitutional
D. holding alabamas petty crime and misdemeanor disenfranchisement provisions unconstitutional under equal protection clause based on evidence of discriminatory intent
E. holding that no person may be imprisoned for any offense whether classified as petty misdemeanor or felony unless he was represented by counsel at his trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.