Having interned long long ago, most "co-authorships/sponsorships" are merely tokens added to a bill to make it seem more impressive.
Rarely, if ever, does a bill sponsor have much to do with the bill. At least in my experience. It was a game to see who we could round up for the bill, and then a political game about who would look better or bring a stronger base.
Right, I didn't have any expectation that she personally drafted the text of section 4 or debated the finer details prior to its introduction, or sought out expert testimony, or even read all 53 pages, or anything like that.
I was more curious over whether the "rounding up" and adding her to the list involved her being present or questioned in any capacity, or whether she just had a standing guideline that she wanted to be listed as a co-sponsor on any Judiciary Committee bills also sponsored by Durbin and Graham or something like that.
Rarely, if ever, does a bill sponsor have much to do with the bill. At least in my experience. It was a game to see who we could round up for the bill, and then a political game about who would look better or bring a stronger base.