at 73, 110 S.Ct. 2729; Suarez, 202 F.3d at 686. As detailed above, myriad evidence establishes that the 2016 Plan makes it easier for supporters of Republican candidates to translate their votes into seats in the state’s congressional delegation and diminishes the need for Republican representatives to respond to the interests of voters who support non-Republican candidates. See supra Part III.B. Accordingly, even if the speech of voters who support non-Republican candidates was not in fact chilled — if, for example, they had all continued to vote for, speak on behalf of, donate money to, and campaign for such candidates — the 2016 Plan nonetheless “adversely affected” such voters’ First Amendment rights by diluting the electoral power of their votes. Shapiro, 203 F.Supp.3d at 597-98 (<HOLDING>). The principle that vote dilution— the
recognizing that dilution of disfavored partys electoral power constitutes adverse effect cognizable under the first amendment holding that even a temporary deprivation of first amendment rights constitutes irreparable harm recognizing first amendment retaliation right recognizing retaliation involving promotion as adverse employment actions under the first amendment recognizing that nonsuit filed for the purpose of circumventing unfavorable legal restrictions or rulings are disfavored