AN ACT TO RESTORE THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE TO LARRY MANGUM OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.
Summary
House Bill 4131 is a private suffrage restoration bill that restores the right to vote to Larry Mangum of Hinds County, Mississippi. The bill identifies two prior felony convictions—embezzlement in 2007 and marijuana sale in 2018—and states that he completed his sentence and has since conducted himself as a law-abiding and honorable citizen.
The measure is narrowly tailored to a single individual and does not create a general change to Mississippi election law. Instead, it acts as a special legislative restoration of suffrage for Mr. Mangum, making him eligible to register and vote again once the act takes effect. The bill takes effect immediately upon passage.
Impact
HB4131 amends no general statute and does not alter the broader rules governing disenfranchisement or restoration of voting rights in Mississippi. Its legal effect is limited to restoring suffrage to one named person, Larry Mangum of Hinds County, thereby removing the voting disqualification that resulted from his felony convictions. The bill would affect only Mr. Mangum’s status as an elector and has no direct statewide regulatory or fiscal impact.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill was presented in a routine, individualized suffrage-restoration format and passed the House without recorded opposition in the materials provided. The bill text itself frames Mr. Mangum as having completed his sentence and as having behaved in a law-abiding manner since then, indicating a favorable legislative view of his petition for restoration. No committee transcript or vote breakdown is available, so there is no evidence in the record provided of significant controversy or divided sentiment.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the use of a private bill to restore voting rights to a single person rather than relying on a general restoration process. The underlying convictions—embezzlement and marijuana sale—could also be viewed as relevant to whether restoration is appropriate, but the bill expressly states that the Legislature has been informed of his subsequent good conduct. No specific objections, amendments, or opposing arguments appear in the provided context.