No. 101-18, 110-8. This drove down voter registration, voter turnout, and cross-party political discussion and compromise. Furthermore, the disfavored political party suffered from statewide decreases in fundraising and candidate recruitment, while at the same time incurring increased statewide costs for voter education and recruitment. E.g., 30(B)(6) Dep. of N.C. Dem. Party by George Wayne Goodwin ("Goodwin Dep.”) 97:18-98:9, April 17, 2017, ECF Nos. 101-30, 110-7; 30(B)(6) Dep. of the League of Women Voters of N.C. by Mary Trotter Klenz ("Klenz Dep.”) 59:7-60:25, 80:1-81:7, April 4, 2017, ECF No. 101-28. Moreover, Plaintiffs have asserted claims for relief that the Supreme Court has not previously, addressed. Compare Vieth v. Pennsylvania, 241 F.Supp.2d 478, 482-83 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (<HOLDING>), aff'd sub nom. Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S.
holding only that districting did not violate the principle of one personone vote under article i  2 nor did it constitute partisan gerrymandering  violating the equal protection clause holding that the admission of his juvenile conviction did not violate equal protection holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection holding redistricting plan would violate equal protection clause if it reflected a naked desire to increase partisan strength