With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". plaintiff must prove. As explained above, there are a number of purposes for which a state redistricting body permissibly may rely on political data or take into account partisan considerations. See supra Part II.B.2.a.. Accordingly, a plaintiff in a partisan gerrymandering case-cannot satisfy the discriminatory intent requirement simply:by proving, that- the redistricting body intended to rely on political data or to take into account partisan considerations. Rather, the plaintiff must show that the redistricting body intended to. apply partisan classifications “in an invidious manner or in a way unrelated to any legitimate legislative objective.” Vieth, 541 U.S. at 307, 124 S.Ct. 1769 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment); id. at 339, 124 S.Ct. 1769 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (<HOLDING>); see also Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 632,

A: holding redistricting plan would violate equal protection clause if it reflected a naked desire to increase partisan strength
B: holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection
C: holding that the states reapportionment plan might violate the equal protection clause
D: 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
A.