“Cosponsored a constitutional balanced budget amendment (S.J.Res.13) to require the federal government to enact a balanced budget each year.”
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.
The promise was itself the act of cosponsoring S.J.Res.13, a constitutional balanced budget amendment. Primary records confirm Britt did exactly that. Her own Senate office page states she "has joined U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), along with 22 additional Senate cosponsors" in introducing S.J.Res.13, which would "Require the President to submit a balanced budget and Congress to pass a balanced budget." Lead sponsor Cindy Hyde-Smith's Senate office independently confirms Britt "joined U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith and 22 additional Senate cosponsors in introducing a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution." Both quotes in the rating were verified verbatim against the reachable pages. The third cited source (Congress.gov cosponsor list) returned HTTP 403 to automated fetch, but its content was independently corroborated by web search, which lists Katie Britt (R-Ala.) among the original cosponsors of S.J.Res.13 (118th Congress). She did precisely what was promised, so FULL is correct. It is correctly NOT CHAMPIONED: Britt was one of 23 cosponsors, not the lead sponsor/author (Hyde-Smith led the effort), and there is no evidence she authored or drove the resolution beyond adding her name. The promise was the act of cosponsoring, not enactment of a balanced budget, and that act is fully documented.
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.