“Support a federal Balanced Budget Amendment and oppose efforts to raise the debt ceiling.”
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 both cited primary sources by fetching the House Clerk XML directly (both returned HTTP 200, live and real). This is a compound two-part promise. HALF A (support a federal Balanced Budget Amendment) was KEPT: on 12-Apr-2018, roll call 138, H.J.Res.2 'Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States' (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, which Failed to reach two-thirds), legislator W000816 Williams (party=R, state=TX) voted Yea. HALF B (oppose efforts to raise the debt ceiling) was VIOLATED: on 31-May-2023, roll call 243, H.R. 3746 'Fiscal Responsibility Act' (On Passage, Passed), Williams (TX) [W000816, party=R, state=TX] voted Aye; that Act suspended/raised the federal debt limit through 1-Jan-2025, the opposite of the promise. Name-id W000816 is unambiguously Roger Williams of Texas, correctly distinguished in the 2023 XML from Williams (GA) [W000788] and Williams (NY) [W000828]. Because he genuinely kept one half (a verifiable supporting BBA vote) but affirmatively broke the other (voted to raise the debt ceiling), PARTIAL ('kept some but not all') is the fair, party-neutral label; a lower outcome would under-credit the real kept BBA vote and a higher one would ignore the active debt-ceiling violation. Same standard would apply to any party. Confidence held at 0.7 given the inherent judgment in aggregating two opposite halves.
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.