AN ACT TO RESTORE THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE TO LEPORION VERSELL OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.
Summary
House Bill 4143 is a private suffrage bill that restores the right to vote to Leporion Versell of Hinds County, Mississippi. The bill identifies his prior disqualifying conviction for robbery in 1999, notes his later probation revocation and additional sentence in 2004, and states that he has since lived as a law-abiding and honorable citizen. If enacted, the bill would fully restore his voting rights effective upon passage.
The measure is narrowly tailored to one individual and does not create a general change to Mississippi election law. Instead, it operates as a special act of the Legislature removing a suffrage disability tied to a felony conviction. Its practical effect is to requalify Mr. Versell as an elector and allow him to participate in elections again, while leaving the broader rules governing felony disenfranchisement unchanged.
Impact
HB4143 would amend the legal status of a single person by restoring his suffrage rights after a felony robbery conviction and related probation revocation. It does not revise the statewide framework for voter eligibility, but it does demonstrate the Legislature’s authority to grant individualized relief from disenfranchisement. The affected party is Leporion Versell; the relevant state-law context is Mississippi’s constitutional and statutory treatment of voting rights after felony convictions.
Sentiment
The bill appears favorable and noncontroversial based on the available record. The text itself uses affirmative findings that the individual has behaved in a law-abiding and honorable manner, which is typical of private suffrage bills intended to support restoration. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes showing opposition, debate, or amendment activity, so the available context suggests a routine, supportive posture toward the measure.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the available materials. In general, private suffrage bills can raise questions about felony disenfranchisement, the standards used to judge rehabilitation, and whether relief should be granted through individualized legislation rather than a broader statutory process. However, this bill’s record does not show any expressed disagreement from committee members, legislators, or other stakeholders.