“Protect Social Security benefits from cuts and support efforts to make Social Security tax-free; will vote to protect Social Security for seniors.”
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.
Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Verified all three cited sources are real and support the rating. House Clerk Roll Call 145 (May 22, 2025) confirms Evans voted Yea on H.R. 1 initial passage; Roll Call 190 (July 3, 2025) confirms Evans voted Aye on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment for H.R. 1 (One Big Beautiful Bill Act). Evans's own official press release explicitly confirms the enacted bill 'Provides seniors with historic new tax break so that the bottom 90% of retiree earners pay no tax on Social Security.' This delivers a substantive but partial version of the tax-free-SS half of the promise via a $6,000 senior deduction rather than literal elimination of the SS benefits tax, and Evans was one supporting vote, not the driver/sponsor (he did not cosponsor the standalone No Tax on Social Security Act, H.R. 904). On the anti-cuts half: OBBBA did not directly cut Social Security benefits themselves (SS trust fund and benefit formulas were not altered), so the promise's anti-cut prong is not violated by this vote, though the bill's Medicaid changes affect seniors in adjacent ways not covered by this specific promise. PARTIAL at 0.65 is fair under a nonpartisan standard: a Democrat who cast a supporting (not leading) vote for a bill that partially delivered their promise would receive the same PARTIAL label. Not CHAMPIONED (Evans did not sponsor or lead), not FULL (deduction is not full elimination of SS tax and applies only to bottom 90%), not ATTEMPTED (it did land as law). Two PRIMARY sources present.
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.