Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
or controversy.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (emphasis added); see also Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 487, 43 S.Ct. 597, 67 L.Ed. 1078 (1923) (denying municipal taxpayer standing to challenge federal spending measure because the taxpayer’s “interest in the moneys of the Treasury— partly realized from taxation and partly from other sources — is shared with millions of others; is comparatively minute and indeterminable”); Hollingsworth v. Perry, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 2662, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013) (“[A]n asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with law is not sufficient, standing alone[.]”). Legislative standing. The general rule that individual legislators lack standing to sue in their official capacity as congressman or senator foll h Cir. 2001) . We held in Baird that to the extent that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding testimony of two jurors that they changed their votes because of pressures to return to work was inadmissible because such pressures were not outside influences within the meaning of rule 606b and rule of civil procedure 327
B. holding that the mortgaging or conveying of exempt property to a creditor is not against the public policy of the state of michigan and that that the bankrupt had the power to convey to a creditor his existing exemptions resulting in the exempt property not being property of the debtor or the debtors bankruptcy estate
C. holding that the due process requirements of jurisdiction in michigan had been met for a dispute involving property in tennessee
D. holding that a michigan house member and a michigan state senator lacked standing to challenge gaming compacts that were approved by a concurrentresolution procedure requiring only a majority of votes cast rather than by the ordinary legislative process that would have required a majority of the votes of all members in each house
E. holding that judicial review of final agency action under the administrative procedure act  provides the proper procedure to challenge the sufficiency of an eis
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.