Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
does not itself offend the Constitution, the fact that each official does not ‘represent’ the same number of people does not deny those people equal protection of the laws.” (citing Sailors)). Moreover, contrary to plaintiffs’ contentions (see Warden Compl. ¶ 51), this is the ease whether or not the body is appointed by officials who are themselves elected, see Sailors, 387 U.S. at 109-10, 87 S.Ct. 1549; Oliver, 306 F.Supp. at 1289, and whether or not the elected officials could theoretically appoint themselves to fill the positions at issue. See, e.g., Rosenthal v. Board of Educ., 385 F.Supp. 223, 22A-26 (E.D.N.Y.1974) (three-judge panel), aff'd, 420 U.S. 985, 95 S.Ct. 1418, 43 L.Ed.2d 667 (1975); cf. Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688, 109 S.Ct. 1433, 103 L.Ed.2d 717 (1989) . In short, notwithstanding the similarities
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board
B. holding that when a superintendent who opposed the winning slate in a school board election was terminated his speech and association involved matters of great public concern  the performance of elected officials
C. holding that the statute that established new york citys board of estimate violated the equal protection clause  even though the boards officials were not directly elected  because borough presidents when elected became members of the board ex officio
D. recognizing absolute immunity for board members and the director of the mississippi state board of nursing
E. holding that plaintiff had standing to sue a board even though board was far from sole participant in the application of the challenged statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.