Suffrage; restore to Leporion Versell, Sr. of Hinds County.
Summary
House Bill 4001 is a private bill that restores the right of suffrage, or voting rights, to Leporion Versell of Hinds County, Mississippi. The bill states that he lost his voting rights because of a 1999 robbery conviction and later probation revocation, and it recites the dates of his incarceration, release, and discharge. It further declares that the Legislature has been informed he has since lived as a law-abiding and honorable citizen.
The measure is narrowly tailored to one individual and does not create a general change in election law. Instead, it operates as a direct legislative restoration of voting rights for a specific person, effective upon passage. If enacted, it would remove the disqualification from suffrage that resulted from the named felony conviction and allow him to register and vote again under Mississippi law.
Impact
HB4001 would amend no general statutory scheme and would not broadly alter Mississippi election or criminal law. Its legal effect is individualized: it restores suffrage to a named person who was previously disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, thereby lifting that specific voting disability and allowing him to participate in elections again once the act takes effect.
Sentiment
Because the bill is a private suffrage restoration measure, the likely sentiment is generally favorable or at least noncontroversial in the absence of recorded opposition. The bill’s language emphasizes rehabilitation and good conduct after release, which suggests a sympathetic framing focused on reintegration and civic participation. No committee debate or vote record was provided, so there is no documented evidence of organized support or opposition in the available materials.
Contention
The main point of potential contention in bills of this kind is whether the Legislature should use a private act to restore voting rights to an individual with a felony record, especially where the underlying offense was robbery and there was a later probation revocation. Supporters would view the bill as recognizing rehabilitation and restoring a basic civic right; opponents, if any, might object to individualized relief or question whether the applicant has met the standards for restoration. No specific objections or recorded debate are available in the provided context.