Suffrage; restore to Mary Wayne Prater of Oktibbeha County.
Summary
HB4011 is a private bill that restores the right of suffrage, meaning the right to vote, to Mary Wayne Prater of Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. The bill identifies her prior felony-related disqualification stemming from a 2002 conviction for false pretense and recounts the subsequent probation revocations, house arrest, incarceration, release, and discharge dates. It also states that the Legislature has been informed she 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 to Mississippi election law. If enacted, it would remove Prater’s disenfranchisement and allow her to register and vote again, while leaving the broader constitutional and statutory framework governing restoration of voting rights unchanged for other people with felony convictions. The act takes effect immediately upon passage.
Impact
HB4011 would amend the legal status of a single named person by restoring her suffrage rights, overriding the voting disqualification that resulted from her criminal conviction and later probation revocations. It does not revise statewide eligibility rules or procedures for restoring voting rights generally; instead, it functions as an individualized legislative pardon of voting rights for Mary Wayne Prater under Mississippi law.
Sentiment
The bill text itself is supportive and rehabilitative in tone, emphasizing that the individual has since behaved in a lawful and honorable manner. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented public debate or formal vote history to indicate broader support or opposition. Based on the bill’s language, the measure appears noncontroversial and framed as a discretionary act of clemency.
Contention
Because no committee discussion or vote record is available, no specific points of contention are documented. In general, private suffrage-restoration bills can raise questions about whether voting rights should be restored through individualized legislative action versus a uniform administrative process, but that issue is not reflected in the provided materials. The bill is otherwise limited to the facts of one person’s conviction history and current standing.