In a perfect democracy, at least 50% of people would support every decision.

The U.S. falls short of this goal.

Activate to continue

Spoken For.
House vote: H.R. 3624 // February 25, 2016

Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of 2016

Sponsor: Ken Buck (R-CO)

Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of 2016 (Sec. 2) This bill amends procedures under which federal courts determine whether a case that was removed from a state court to a federal court on the basis of a diversity of citizenship among the parties may be remanded back to state court upon a motion opposed on fraudulent joinder grounds that: (1) one or more defendants are citizens of the same state as one or more plaintiffs, or (2) one or more defendants properly joined and served are citizens of the state in which the action was brought. Joinder of such a defendant is fraudulent if the court finds: actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts with respect to that defendant, state law would not plausibly impose liability on that defendant, state or federal law bars all claims in the complaint against that defendant, or no good faith intention to prosecute the action against that defendant or to seek a joint judgment including that defendant.

Law Topic assigned by the Congressional Research Service.

Who won, and how much of the country was behind them

Won the vote · Nay

237 votes, representing 135,457,363 people54.4%of U.S. adults

Lost the vote · Yea

178 votes, representing 102,204,846 people41.1%of U.S. adults

The dotted gap is 4.5% of U.S. adults whose member did not vote, voted “present,” or whose seat was vacant.

Share of U.S. adults represented, the House
SideOutcomeVotesShare of U.S. adults
NayWon23754.4%
YeaLost17841.1%
Not represented on this questionNo position taken04.5%