facie partisan gerrymandering claim under the Equal Protection Clause, “a plaintiff must show both [1] discriminatory intent and [2] discriminatory effects.” Common Cause, 240 F.Supp.3d at 387 (citing Bandemer, 478 U.S. at 127, 106 S.Ct. 2797 (plurality op.); id. at 161, 106 S.Ct. 2797 (Powell, J., concurring and dissenting)). Plaintiffs further propose — and we agree — that if Plaintiffs establish that the 2016 Plan was enacted with discriminatory intent and resulted in discriminatory effects, the plan will nonetheless survive constitutional scrutiny if its discriminatory effects are attributable to the state’s political geography or another legitimate redistricting objective. League Br. 21; Common Cause Br. 17-19; see also Bandemer, 478 U.S. at 141-42, 106 S.Ct. 2797 (plurality op.) (<HOLDING>); cf. Whitford, 218 F.Supp.3d at 884 (“[T]he
recognizing justification step recognizing change recognizing rule recognizing this rule recognizing presumption