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. 725 // March 9, 2017

Innocent Party Protection Act

Sponsor: Ken Buck (R-CO)

(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.) Innocent Party Protection Act (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 · Yea

224 votes, representing 128,798,940 people51.2%of U.S. adults

Lost the vote · Nay

194 votes, representing 112,612,990 people44.8%of U.S. adults

The dotted gap is 4.0% 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
YeaWon22451.2%
NayLost19444.8%
Not represented on this questionNo position taken04.0%