Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
PartialState budget / fiscal reserves

Increase Rainy Day Fund savings from 20 percent to 30 percent and fully fund the account, adding roughly $630 million.

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 verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

PartialFact-checker reviewConfidence: 90%

All three cited sources are reachable and substantiate the PARTIAL rating for this promise. Lombardo, in his 2023 State of the State, promised to raise the Rainy Day Fund cap from 20% to 30%, fully fund it, and add roughly $630 million. He proposed and led SB431 (a signature bill), but the 30% target was amended down to 26% of general-fund appropriations in a compromise with Democratic lawmakers. The fund was nonetheless fully funded and reached a record balance of roughly $1.23-1.24 billion. So the specific 30% cap was NOT delivered (it landed at 26%), while the "fully fund"/large-reserve portion was achieved. That mix of a delivered component and a missed specific target correctly maps to PARTIAL, and the Nevada Independent's dedicated Lombardo Promise Tracker independently rates this pledge "Compromised." The outcome does not overstate the evidence; it is not a failure and not a full/championed delivery of exactly what was promised. Verification notes: LVRJ and News3LV quotes are verbatim in the fetched sources; the Nevada Independent quote as cited is a close paraphrase rather than an exact string, but every material fact (SB431, the failed 20-to-30 proposal, the 26% compromise, and the "Compromised" rating) is confirmed verbatim in that article, so the cited source genuinely documents this outcome for this promise. I have replaced the source quotes below with the verified verbatim text where the cited version differed.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See 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 arguments

These 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.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →