Fact check: Did a bill ever go to a vote before the full house to stop partisain gerrymandering?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, no clear evidence exists of a bill specifically designed to stop partisan gerrymandering going to a vote before the full House. The sources reveal a complex landscape of redistricting activities, but none explicitly confirm a comprehensive anti-gerrymandering bill reaching a full House vote.

The analyses do reveal several relevant legislative activities:

• California's Assembly passed a constitutional amendment authorizing redistricting maps by a 57-20 vote, with the Senate passing three related measures along party lines ^[1]
• California Democrats approved a package of bills to establish a November special election for voters to consider new congressional maps, specifically designed to counter Texas gerrymandering ^[1]
• The Fair Representation Act was reintroduced in the House, which aims to address partisan gerrymandering issues, though no vote is mentioned ^{[2] [3] [4]}

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial context about the current redistricting arms race happening across multiple states. The analyses reveal that:

• Texas Republicans are actively redistricting to help their party in the 2026 midterm elections, prompted by President Trump's requests ^{[5] [6]}
• California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a plan for new voting maps that could give Democrats five additional House seats ^[5]
• Multiple states beyond Texas and California are engaged in redistricting efforts that could impact the balance of power in the House ^{[7] [6]}

Alternative approaches to addressing gerrymandering are also missing from the original question:

• California Republicans introduced a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment requiring nonpartisan redistricting commissions ^[8]
• The Fair Representation Act proposes comprehensive reforms including ranked choice voting and multi-member districts, which would fundamentally transform how congressional elections work ^{[3] [4]}

Key beneficiaries of different approaches include:

• Democratic leadership benefits from California's counter-gerrymandering efforts against Texas
• Republican leadership benefits from Texas redistricting efforts
• Reform organizations like FairVote benefit from promoting comprehensive electoral reforms like the Fair Representation Act

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains implicit assumptions that may not reflect the current political reality:

• It assumes there was a single, comprehensive anti-gerrymandering bill that went to a House vote, when the evidence suggests redistricting battles are happening at the state level with tit-for-tat responses between parties ^{[1] [5]}
• The question frames gerrymandering as something that could be stopped by federal legislation, while the current reality shows state-level redistricting wars where each party uses gerrymandering as a weapon against the other ^{[7] [5] [6]}
• It doesn't acknowledge that both major parties engage in gerrymandering when it benefits them, as evidenced by California's explicit counter-gerrymandering against Texas ^[1]

The question also oversimplifies the legislative landscape by not recognizing that comprehensive reforms like the Fair Representation Act exist but face significant political obstacles, and that most anti-gerrymandering efforts are currently happening through state-level initiatives and court challenges rather than federal legislation ^{[2] [3] [4]}.