SB 3279 is a private suffrage restoration bill that would restore the right to vote to Randall Lee McCulloch of Winston County, Mississippi. The bill identifies his prior felony convictions for larceny, carjacking, and embezzlement in the 1980s and 1990s, notes that he completed his sentence and was discharged in 2003, and states that he has since lived as a law-abiding citizen. If enacted, the measure would fully and completely restore his status as an elector.
The bill is narrowly tailored to one individual and does not change Mississippi’s general voting-rights restoration process for other people with felony convictions. Its legal effect is to remove McCulloch’s disqualification from voting under the Mississippi Constitution and related suffrage restrictions, effective July 1, 2025. Because it is a special act of the Legislature, it functions as an individualized exception rather than a broad policy reform.
Impact
SB 3279 would amend the legal status of one named person by restoring his suffrage rights, allowing him to register and vote in Mississippi once the act takes effect. It does not create a new general eligibility standard or alter the underlying statutes governing disenfranchisement for felony convictions statewide; instead, it operates as a private legislative restoration of voting rights for Randall Lee McCulloch alone.
Sentiment
The available text suggests a favorable and routine sentiment toward the bill, with the Legislature affirmatively stating that McCulloch completed his sentence and has behaved as a law-abiding citizen since discharge. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided showing opposition or debate, so the public record here reflects a straightforward restoration measure rather than a contested policy proposal.
Contention
No specific contention is documented in the provided materials. The only potentially sensitive issue is the underlying criminal history cited in the bill—larceny, carjacking, and embezzlement—which is relevant because the measure restores voting rights despite those convictions. However, there is no evidence in the supplied context of disagreement over his rehabilitation, eligibility, or the appropriateness of a private suffrage bill.