The state of Maryland has enacted a statute governing the issuance of absentee ballots in state elections. Under the statute, any male under the age of 65 will be issued an absentee ballot only upon written proof that the applicant will be unable to be present at the voting place on the scheduled day for the election. If the applicant is female, however no written proof is required, and the applicant's statement that she cannot be present at the polling place is accepted at face value. The motivation for the statute was the legislature's belief that many women voters are the mothers of infants, who cannot easily get to the polling place to vote. Marvin, a male resident of Booth, has attacked the requirement of written proof on the grounds that it violates his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights. Will Marvin succeed in claim to invalidate the statute?

A. Yes, because the statute impacts the fundamental right of voting and thus is subject to strict scrutiny. The government cannot show a compelling interest such that the statute is narrowly tailored as the least restrictive means of achieving its interest.

B. No, because although the statute discriminates on the basis of gender, a quasi-suspect class, it does not have a discriminatory intent and it is substantially related to an important government interest of helping mothers of small children to vote.

C. No, Marvin will not succeed because the statute is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest of helping mothers of small children to vote.

D.Yes, because it is not fair to make men have to submit written proof and not make women dothe same thing.