Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(1) bear the obligation “to manage and supervise the process by which signatures for the initiative petition are obtained”; (2) “control the arguments in favor of an initiative measure,” including by serving as gatekeeper for all ballot arguments, providing arguments afforded priority status on the ballot, controlling all rebuttal ballot arguments, and retaining the ability to withdraw ballot arguments at any time; and (3) are allowed to intervene, both before and after the initiative is passed, in litigation affecting the initiated statute, and to appeal state court rulings adverse to the initiative’s validity. Perry v. Brown, 52 Cal.4th 1116, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 499, 265 P.3d 1002, 1017-18 (2011). But see Hollingsworth v. Perry, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 2662, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013) . In addition to having special duties beyond
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the authority of the official proponent to intervene in court proceedings pertaining to an initiative is insufficient without more to create article iii standing
B. holding that article iii standing is not a prerequisite to intervention
C. holding that official proponents of californias proposition 8 lacked article iii standing in federal court
D. holding that because article iii standing is jurisdictional it must be decided before other legal issues
E. holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.