adopt a remedial plan (1) offered by Plaintiffs, (2) drawn by the court, or (3) drawn by an independent expert. (SR14:1940.) Alternatively, Plaintiffs urged the trial court to issue specific guidance to the Legislature if it was to be allowed to draw the remedial plan. (SR14:1952-54.) Plaintiffs also requested adjustment of election deadlines for the 2014 election to ensure that Florida’s citizens would not be forced to vote again in unconstitutional districts. (SR14: 1941-44.) Following an evidentiary hearing, on August 1, 2014, the trial court denied the Legislature’s request to defer any remedy until after the 2014 election, but permitted it to redraw the congressional plan. (SR3:230-35.) Declining to issue specific instructions, the trial court ordered the Legislature to adopt a remedial plan by August 15, 2014. (SR3:234.) After the Legislature convened a special session and adopted a new plan that revised Districts 5 and 10 (the “Revised Plan”), Plaintiffs filed objections contending that this new plan was as unconstitutional as the first; the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on August 20, 2014. (SR16:2186; SR20:2583-2716.) Two days later, the court issued an order overruling Plaintiffs’ objections and adopting the Revised Plan. (SR16:2306-09.) Because there was inadequate time to affect the 2014 elections and a special election was not feasible, the trial court ordered that the 2014 elections proceed under the invalidated 2012 Congressional Plan, with the Revised Plan to go into effect for the 2016 elections. (SR16:2309.) 4