the redistricting plan was among members of the entity responsible for developing and adopting the plan and whether the processes leading to the development and adoption of the plan were transparent and equally open to all members of the entity and to the public. (3) Determination of intent A court may rely on all available evidence when determining whether a redistricting plan was drawn with the intent to materially favor or disfavor a political party, including evidence of the partisan effects of a plan, the degree of support the plan received from members of the entity responsible for developing and adopting the plan, and whether the processes leading to development and adoption of the plan were transparent and equally open to all members of the entity and to the public. (4) No violation based on certain criteria No redistricting plan shall be found to be in violation of paragraph (1) because of the proper application of the criteria set forth in paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a), unless one or more alternative plans could have complied with such paragraphs without having the effect of materially favoring or disfavoring a political party. (c) Factors prohibited from consideration In developing the redistricting plan for the State, the State may not take into consideration any of the following factors, except as necessary to comply with the criteria described in paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a), to achieve partisan fairness and comply with subsection (b), and to enable the redistricting plan to be measured against the external metrics described in section 304(c): (1) The residence of any Member of the House of Representatives, candidate, or any other individual who is eligible to serve as a Member of the House of Representatives from the State. (2) The political party affiliation or voting history of the population of a district. (d) Additional criteria A State may not rely upon criteria, districting principles, or other policies of the State which are not set forth in this section to