“Advance the For the People Act (S.1) to enact national voting-rights and election reforms strengthening election security and boosting voter turnout.”
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. Padilla was an original co-introducer/cosponsor of S.1, the For the People Act, on March 17, 2021 (the day of introduction) — his own office's press release, dated March 17, 2021, is titled 'Padilla Joins Colleagues to Introduce For the People Act' and contains the exact language the promise is drawn from ('strengthen election security and boost voter turnout'). As California's former chief elections officer he was a natural and vocal advocate. He voted to invoke cloture; the cloture motion failed on a party-line 50-50 vote on June 22, 2021, short of the 60 needed, with Senate Republicans blocking the bill via filibuster (confirmed via Wikipedia's legislative-history record). Padilla then publicly called to end the filibuster to pass it (his June 22, 2021 statement). He sponsored and actively drove the effort beyond a single supporting vote, but the bill was not enacted — so CHAMPIONED (+0.75), not FULL. Under a party-neutral standard, a senator of either party who originally cosponsored a numbered priority bill, voted for cloture, and pushed to change the rules to pass it would earn the same CHAMPIONED label. Confidence trimmed slightly from the prior 0.9 because the prior rationale's 'one of its most vocal advocates' framing modestly overstates his role relative to lead sponsors Merkley/Schumer/Klobuchar; the substantive facts are solid. The prior rating's NPR citation could not be re-verified (repeated fetch failures), so it is replaced here with the independently-confirmed Wikipedia record of the vote.
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.