“Pledged to vote against any effort to weaken or create carveouts in the Senate filibuster (the 60-vote threshold).”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Both cited sources are reachable and support the FULL outcome for this promise. The PRIMARY source (official Senate roll call, 117th Congress, 2nd Session, Vote 10) confirms the vote question verbatim ("On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair stand as the Judgement of the Senate)"), dated Jan 19, 2022, tally 52 Yeas / 48 Nays, with Murkowski (R-AK) recorded voting Yea. On this vote a Yea sustained the Chair's ruling (that the 60-vote threshold applies), preserving the filibuster and defeating the effort to create a talking-filibuster carveout for the voting-rights bill; a Nay would have overturned it via the nuclear option. That is exactly the action the promise contemplated. The Wikipedia REPUTABLE_SECONDARY source corroborates: the Senate voted 52-48 against overturning the chair's ruling, with every Republican plus Manchin and Sinema opposing the nuclear option. The cited quotes appear in both sources (only trivial en-dash/date-rollover formatting differences in the secondary). The small-model note that the underlying vehicle was H.R. 5746 (a NASA leasing shell bill) is accurate and does not undercut the rating — the voting-rights package was carried on that vehicle. FULL rather than CHAMPIONED is correct: Murkowski cast the promised vote but was one of many, not the driver. The outcome does not overstate the evidence.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.