electoral conditions. (C) A comparison of the modeled electoral outcomes for the redistricting plan to the modeled electoral outcomes for alternative plans that demonstrably comply with the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (b) in order to determine whether reasonable alternatives exist that would result in materially lower levels of partisan advantage or disadvantage on a statewide basis. For purposes of this subparagraph, alternative plans considered may include both actual plans proposed during the redistricting process and other plans prepared for purposes of comparison. (D) Any other relevant information, including how broad support for 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) Rebuttable presumption (A) Trigger In any civil action brought under section 7 in which a party asserts a claim that a State has enacted a redistricting plan which is in violation of this subsection, a party may file a motion not later than 30 days after the enactment of the plan (or, in the case of a plan enacted before the date of enactment of this Act, not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act) requesting that the court determine whether a presumption of such a violation exists. If such a motion is timely filed, the court shall hold a hearing not later than 15 days after the date the motion is filed to assess whether a presumption of such a violation exists. (B) Assessment To conduct the assessment required under subparagraph (A), the court shall do the following: (i) Determine the number of congressional districts under the plan that would have been carried by each political party’s candidates for the office of President and the office of Senator in the 2 most recent general elections for the office of President and the 2 most recent general elections for the