Michael Lawler (R-NY)
Problem Solvers MAPS Act
A Republican bill with 6 Democratic cosponsors · See all 10 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
Yes· 3 of 24
- Scored +8
Does this make elections run better?
The bill bans partisan gerrymandering and requires compact, contiguous congressional districts with equal populations to improve the fairness of elections.
- Scored +6
Does this protect the right to vote?
The bill establishes federal standards for congressional redistricting that prohibit partisan gerrymandering and protect population equality among districts.
- Scored +5
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
The bill explicitly requires states to consider tribal land boundaries when establishing congressional districts, protecting Native American representation.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The bill restricts state autonomy by overriding state-level redistricting processes with mandatory federal criteria.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
* Section 2(a)(1)(D) requires congressional districts to achieve population equality as nearly as practicable. This helps ensure that every person's vote carries equal weight.
* Section 2(a)(2) requires States to consider keeping pre-existing political subdivisions like counties, cities, tribal lands, and towns together. This is a positive for communities because it helps keep local neighborhoods and towns unified instead of splitting them apart.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill explicitly requires states to consider tribal land boundaries when establishing congressional districts, protecting Native American representation. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Prohibiting partisan gerrymandering and preserving political subdivision boundaries helps prevent the disenfranchisement of minority communities through vote-dilution. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Fair map-drawing rules ensure that growing Asian American populations are kept together in cohesive districts rather than fragmented. Would farmers be better off under this? — The requirement to preserve pre-existing political subdivisions and county boundaries helps keep rural and agricultural communities unified. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Requiring compact and contiguous districts protects Hispanic communities from being intentionally split across multiple districts to weaken their voting strength. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Fair districting rules prevent the dilution of votes in low-income neighborhoods, helping ensure their needs are fairly represented. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The ban on partisan map-drawing protects middle-class voters from having their voting power diminished by rigged political boundaries. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The mandate to consider counties, towns, and local boundaries helps protect rural communities from being carved up into distant urban districts. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Eliminating partisan gerrymandering ensures that young voters' ballots carry equal weight and encourages greater civic participation. Would children be better off under this? — Fairer representation helps ensure that community needs, including family and youth services, are better addressed by elected officials. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Fair districting standards protect immigrant communities from being intentionally divided to diminish their political voice. Would men be better off under this? — Non-partisan redistricting standards ensure that all constituents are represented equally regardless of demographic background. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Transparent and accountable congressional districting helps ensure government responsiveness to constituents. Would retired people be better off under this? — Keeping local communities together ensures stable and responsive representation for retired populations. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Preserving local political subdivisions keeps senior communities unified within single congressional districts, enhancing advocacy for senior issues. Would students be better off under this? — Fair representation ensures that student populations are not arbitrarily split across districts that dilute their community interests. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Compactness and population equality requirements ensure urban voters receive fair representation proportional to their numbers. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Keeping local communities and counties together helps ensure that veteran service hubs and communities remain unified within single congressional districts. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Ensuring equal population weight and competitive integrity benefits all voters by promoting responsive governance. Would women be better off under this? — Fairer elections create a more level playing field for all candidates, which can support diverse representation.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this protect the right to vote? — The bill establishes federal standards for congressional redistricting that prohibit partisan gerrymandering and protect population equality among districts. Does this make casting a ballot easier in practice? — By requiring contiguous, compact, and fairly drawn districts, the bill ensures that voters have fairer representation and more meaningful access to democratic participation.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make elections run better? — The bill bans partisan gerrymandering and requires compact, contiguous congressional districts with equal populations to improve the fairness of elections. Does this give the federal government more power? — The legislation imposes federal standards on states regarding how they must draw their congressional districts. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill restricts state autonomy by overriding state-level redistricting processes with mandatory federal criteria.
- 9/15/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 10 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Ed CaseDemocrat · Hawaii
Salud CarbajalDemocrat · California
Debbie DingellDemocrat · Michigan
Brian FitzpatrickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Jeff HurdRepublican · Colorado
Nick LaLotaRepublican · New York
Ryan MackenzieRepublican · Pennsylvania
Donald NorcrossDemocrat · New Jersey
Darren SotoDemocrat · Florida
Thomas SuozziDemocrat · New York