AN ACT TO RESTORE THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE TO PETER FULTON OF OKTIBBEHA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.
Summary
House Bill 4141 is a private suffrage bill that restores the right to vote to Peter Fulton of Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. The bill identifies Fulton as having been disqualified as an elector because of prior felony convictions, including perjury and residential burglary, and states that he was discharged from custody in 1998. It further recites the Legislature’s finding that he has since lived as a law-abiding and honorable citizen.
The measure is narrow in scope and applies only to the named individual. If enacted, it would remove the voting disability tied to Fulton’s convictions and fully restore his suffrage rights effective upon passage. The bill does not amend the general election code or change statewide restoration procedures; instead, it operates as a special legislative restoration of voting rights for one person.
Impact
HB4141 would amend no general statutes and would not create a new statewide process for restoring voting rights. Its legal effect is limited to restoring Peter Fulton’s suffrage rights, thereby lifting the elector disqualification arising from his felony convictions. The practical impact is on Fulton alone, though it reflects the Legislature’s use of individualized suffrage bills to grant relief from conviction-based voting restrictions.
Sentiment
The available context suggests a generally favorable and uncontroversial posture toward the bill. It passed the House, and there are no recorded committee transcripts, votes, or objections in the provided materials indicating organized opposition. The bill’s language itself is affirmative, emphasizing Fulton’s long period of lawful conduct since discharge, which is typical of suffrage-restoration measures that receive sympathetic consideration.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided record. In suffrage-restoration bills like this, any potential concern would usually center on the appropriateness of restoring voting rights to a person with prior felony convictions, but the text and available history do not show debate over Fulton’s eligibility or character. Because the bill is individualized and fact-specific, any disagreement would likely be about the Legislature’s use of private bills for rights restoration rather than about a broader policy change.