Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
likewise conclude that Section 951.1, 25 Pa.C.S. § 2911.1, under which the Commonwealth Court ruled that Camejo cannot appear on the ballot as the candidate of a political body because of his membership in the (minor) Green Party, is inapplicable. I believe that the language of this provision, which includes “thirty (30) days before the primary----” as its reference point of disaffiliation, when read in context, clearly reveals that the General Assembly intended it to apply to major, not minor, political parties. This is so because in the Election Code, the legislature has determined that only major parties may gain ballot access through the primary process. See Heicklen v. Pennsylvania Board of Elections, 751 A.2d 260, 262 (Pa.Cmwlth.), aff'd per curiam, 561 Pa. 33, 747 A.2d 894 (2000) Further, even if Camejo’s affidavit were
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that 25 pacs  28722 is capable of only one meaning that minor political parties must nominate candidates by nomination papers and are not entitled to participate at party primaries
B. holding that billboard was not structure within meaning of the zoning enabling act g l c 40  25
C. holding that persecution was on account of political opinion because petitioners prosecutorial investigation into acts of political corruption was by its very nature political
D. holding that it violated the first amendment to prohibit announcement of views on disputed legal and political issues by candidates for judicial election
E. holding that the achievements of minor political parties were accomplished without the help of public funds thus the limited participation or nonparticipation of nonmajor parties or candidates in public funding does not unconstitutionally disadvantage them
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.