Amendment challenges to ballot-access restrictions and recognizing that when state election laws impose “reasonable” content-neutral ballot-access restrictions “the State’s important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify the restrictions” (quotation omitted)). Applying this standard, courts have uniformly concluded that the public interests advanced by resign-to-run laws justify any temporary and content-neutral restriction affecting candidates and voters. See, e.g., Clements, 457 U.S. at 971 (observing that rejection of claimants’ equal-protection claim also “disposes” of their related argument that Texas resign-to-run clause violates First Amendment and characterizing claimants’ “First Amendment interests in candidacy” as “insignificant”); Morial, 565 F.2d at 302 (<HOLDING>); Worthy, 142 F. Supp. 2d at 816-18 (holding
holding that any impairment of candidates and voters first amendment interests was not sufficiently grievous to invalidate louisiana statute requiring judge to resign office before becoming candidate for nonjudicial office holding that an employee had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office even though the papers seized from the office were not the property of the employee holding that when a judicial office is created by legislative act or municipal ordinance  the office is regarded as a de facto office until the act or ordinance is declared invalid holding that an outofstate attorney paying rent for a desk in an attorneys instate office had satisfied the office requirement recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole