PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 5, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10379 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10379 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10379 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10379 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-15 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Problem Solvers MAPS Act would set federal rules for how states draw U.S. House districts. It would regulate district shape and population balance and prohibit drawing districts to favor or disfavor electoral competition, sitting officeholders, candidates, or political parties. States would also have to consider preserving existing local and tribal boundaries.
This Act may be cited as the Problem Solvers Map-drawing Accountability and Principled Standards Act or the Problem Solvers MAPS Act.
(A) Each congressional district in the State shall consist of contiguous territory (except to the extent necessary to include any area which is surrounded by a body of water). (B) Each congressional district in the State shall be as compact in form as practicable. (C) No congressional district in the State shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring competition, an incumbent, a particular candidate, or a particular political party. (D) Congressional districts shall be drawn to achieve population equality as nearly as practicable, consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
In establishing each congressional district, the State shall consider the preservation of pre-existing political subdivisions, including counties, cities, tribal land boundaries, and towns.
The proposal would make its district requirements apply in every state, notwithstanding other provisions of law.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the congressional districts of each State shall meet each of the following requirements:
District territory would have to be connected, except where necessary to include an area surrounded by water. Districts would also have to be as compact—rather than spread out—as practicable.
(A) Each congressional district in the State shall consist of contiguous territory (except to the extent necessary to include any area which is surrounded by a body of water). (B) Each congressional district in the State shall be as compact in form as practicable.
The proposal would prohibit drawing a district for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring electoral competition, an incumbent (a current officeholder), a particular candidate, or a particular political party. This restriction addresses the purpose of drawing the district.
(C) No congressional district in the State shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring competition, an incumbent, a particular candidate, or a particular political party.
Districts would have to be drawn with populations as nearly equal as practicable, consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
(D) Congressional districts shall be drawn to achieve population equality as nearly as practicable, consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
States would have to consider preserving existing counties, cities, tribal land boundaries, and towns when establishing each district. The provision requires consideration, rather than guaranteeing that those boundaries remain intact.
In establishing each congressional district, the State shall consider the preservation of pre-existing political subdivisions, including counties, cities, tribal land boundaries, and towns.
The requirements would apply to any congressional district established on or after enactment. That timing is conditional on the proposal becoming law.
The requirements under subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any congressional district established on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 5, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on September 15, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-05T21:09:23Z. 2026-09-15: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-09-15: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-15. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential treatment warranting a targeted-benefit finding was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 5, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI