“Booker committed to advancing the A. Donald McEachin Environmental Justice for All Act, which he said would ensure everyone has access to clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment regardless of socioeconomic status or race.”
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.
Independently verified. On March 22, 2023 (World Water Day) the renamed A. Donald McEachin Environmental Justice for All Act was reintroduced at a bicameral press conference. On the Senate side (S.919) the sponsor of record is Tammy Duckworth 'for herself, Mr. Booker, Mr. Markey...'; Booker is the first-named cosponsor. Booker did not merely cast a supporting vote: he co-led the Senate effort as co-chair/co-founder of the Senate's first-ever Environmental Justice Caucus, co-introduced the companion bill, headlined the press conference, and issued his own Senate press release titling him as an introducer and quoting him driving the effort. Because he actively led/co-led the legislation (beyond a single vote) but it died in the Committee on Environment and Public Works with no committee or floor vote and was never enacted, the correct outcome is CHAMPIONED, not FULL. ATTEMPTED is a weaker fit because there was no vote to cast; the action was the leadership/co-sponsorship itself. Same-standard fairness holds: a co-caucus-chair of either party who co-introduces and headlines a launch for a bill that dies in committee earns CHAMPIONED. Note: prior rating slightly overstated Booker as a formal lead sponsor; corrected here to co-lead/first-named cosponsor, which still supports CHAMPIONED. Outcome and confidence stand.
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.