AN ACT MAKING AN APPROPRIATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE EXPENSES OF THE OFFICE OF CAPITAL POST-CONVICTION COUNSEL OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2027.
Summary
House Bill 1926 is an annual appropriations measure for the Mississippi Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel for Fiscal Year 2027. It provides $2,100,968 from the State General Fund and $215,258 from state treasury funds credited to the office, for a total appropriation of $2,316,226. The bill authorizes 9 permanent positions and no time-limited positions, and it becomes effective July 1, 2026.
The act also includes standard budget and fiscal controls. It requires the office to maintain detailed accounting and personnel records, directs that its FY 2028 budget request be submitted in a comparable format to the FY 2027 request, and reiterates that expenditures must comply with state law prohibiting obligations beyond appropriations. It further provides that funds are to be disbursed through the State Treasurer and State Fiscal Officer under existing warrant procedures.
Impact
HB1926 does not change substantive criminal procedure or post-conviction law; instead, it funds the state agency responsible for providing counsel in capital post-conviction matters. The bill sustains the Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel’s staffing and operating budget for FY 2027, which affects the state’s ability to handle death penalty post-conviction litigation and related representation obligations. It also reinforces existing fiscal accountability requirements for the agency and the state budgeting process.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and broadly supported. It passed the House unanimously 121-0 and the Senate unanimously 51-0, with no committee transcript material indicating debate or opposition. The vote totals suggest consensus around continuing funding for the office and its role in the state’s capital post-conviction system.
Contention
There is no recorded substantive contention in the available materials. The only potentially sensitive issue inherent in the bill is the continued public funding of capital post-conviction representation, which can draw policy debate in other contexts, but no opposition or disagreement is reflected in the votes or transcripts provided. The bill’s provisions on headcount, recordkeeping, and limits on replacing federal or special funds are standard appropriations safeguards rather than points of dispute.