AN ACT TO RESTORE THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE TO OMAR EUGENE MAGEE OF COVINGTON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.
Summary
House Bill 4128 is a private suffrage restoration bill that restores the right to vote to Omar Eugene Magee of Covington County, Mississippi. The bill specifically identifies the convictions that originally disqualified him as an elector, including grand larceny, burglary, and delivery of controlled substances, and states that he has completed all terms and conditions of his sentences and 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 or felony disenfranchisement standards. If enacted, it would remove Mr. Magee’s voting disability and allow him to register and vote again, effective immediately upon passage.
Impact
HB4128 would amend Mississippi’s suffrage restrictions only as applied to Omar Eugene Magee by restoring his voting rights after prior felony convictions. It does not alter the broader constitutional or statutory framework governing disenfranchisement in Mississippi, nor does it change eligibility rules for other people with felony convictions. Its legal effect is limited to removing this individual’s disqualification as an elector.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or recorded vote information is provided, but the bill’s language is affirmative and rehabilitative in tone, emphasizing that Mr. Magee completed his sentence and has behaved as a law-abiding citizen. The absence of recorded opposition or debate suggests the measure was treated as a routine individual suffrage restoration bill rather than a contested policy change.
Contention
The main point of potential contention in bills of this type is the use of legislative discretion to restore voting rights to a single person with multiple felony convictions, including drug and property offenses. Supporters would focus on sentence completion, rehabilitation, and reintegration, while any concern would likely center on the seriousness and number of prior convictions and whether individualized restorations should be granted through legislation at all. No specific opposition is documented in the provided materials.