With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the two principal parties to translate their votes into representation with equal effectiveness. See infra Part III.B.2.b. According to Plaintiffs, a variety of measures of the 2016 Plan’s partisan symmetry reveal that, throughout the life of the plan, supporters of non-Republican candidates will likely have a significantly more difficult time translating their votes into representation. Legislative Defendants are correct that none of these empirical analyses appear in the Constitution. But Plaintiffs need not show that a particular empirical analysis or statistical measure appears in the Constitution to establish that a judicially manageable standard exists to resolve their constitutional claims. See, e.g., Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842-43, 103 S.Ct. 2690, 77 L.Ed.2d 214 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Rather, Plaintiffs must identify cognizable

A: holding that the mathematical disparity between 197 of africanamericans in the population and 47 of africanamericans on grand jury lists was adequate for a prima facie case under an equal protection analysis
B: recognizing compactness contiguity maintaining integrity of political subdivisions and potentially compliance with the voting rights act as legitimate considerations for deviations from population equality in state redistricting plans
C: holding that an apportionment plan with a maximum population deviation under 10 falls within the category of minor deviations  from mathematical equality among state legislative districts that are insufficient to make out a prima facie case of invidious discrimination under the fourteenth amendment notwithstanding that the plain language of the constitution references no such statistical threshold
D: holding that a legislative prohibition against interracial marriage violated the due process and equality guarantees of the fourteenth amendment
C.