Fact check: Did a bill ever go to a vote before the full house that would have put all redistricting before a non-partisain group?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, none of the sources directly address a bill that went to a vote before the full House that would have put all redistricting before a non-partisan group. The sources focus primarily on state-level redistricting battles and California's specific situation with Governor Newsom's redistricting plans.

The closest reference to federal action comes from one source that mentions California Republicans introduced a resolution calling on Congress to propose a constitutional amendment requiring all states to use a nonpartisan commission for redistricting ^[1]. However, this was a resolution, not a bill that went to a House vote.

One source does fact-check Governor Newsom's claim that "Democrats have voted for national independent redistricting, while Republicans have not" and finds this statement to be "Mostly True" ^[2]. This suggests there may have been some form of federal legislative action on redistricting reform, but the specific details of any House vote are not provided in these analyses.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal significant missing context about federal redistricting reform efforts. While the sources discuss various state-level redistricting battles in Texas, California, Missouri, Ohio, New York, Illinois, Indiana, and Florida ^[3], they do not provide comprehensive information about federal legislative attempts to establish nationwide non-partisan redistricting.

The sources highlight a partisan divide on redistricting reform, with evidence suggesting Democrats have supported national independent redistricting while Republicans have opposed it ^[2]. However, the analyses lack specific details about:

• The exact nature of any federal bills or votes
• Timeline of when such votes may have occurred
• Specific vote counts or legislative procedures
• The substance of any proposed federal redistricting legislation

Political actors who would benefit from different narratives include:

• Democrats who could use evidence of Republican opposition to redistricting reform to argue for partisan advantage
• Republicans who might benefit from downplaying or questioning the existence of such federal efforts
• Governor Gavin Newsom and other state officials who use federal precedents to justify their own redistricting actions

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears to be seeking factual information rather than making a claim, so there is limited potential for misinformation in the statement itself. However, the question's framing suggests an assumption that such a bill existed and went to a House vote.

The analyses reveal potential gaps in available information rather than clear misinformation. The fact that multiple sources discuss redistricting reform efforts but none directly address a federal House vote suggests either:

• Such a vote may not have occurred as described
• The vote occurred but is not well-documented in the analyzed sources
• The question may be referring to a different type of legislative action (such as a resolution rather than a bill)

The lack of specific sourcing in the analyses (most show "date_published: null") makes it difficult to establish a clear timeline or verify the currency of the information provided.