A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 241, MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION OF 1890, TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO IS OTHERWISE A QUALIFIED ELECTOR AND HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY SHALL HAVE HIS OR HER RIGHT TO VOTE SUSPENDED UPON CONVICTION AND SHALL NOT HAVE HIS OR HER RIGHT TO VOTE RESTORED UNTIL HE OR SHE HAS SATISFIED ALL OF THE SENTENCING REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONVICTION; AND PROPOSING THE REPEAL OF SECTION 253, MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION OF 1890, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE LEGISLATURE MAY, BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF BOTH HOUSES, OF ALL MEMBERS ELECTED, RESTORE THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE TO ANY PERSON DISQUALIFIED BY REASON OF CRIME.
House Concurrent Resolution 27 proposes a Mississippi constitutional amendment that would change when people convicted of felonies lose and regain the right to vote. Under the proposal, a person who is otherwise a qualified elector would have voting rights suspended upon felony conviction and would not regain those rights until all sentencing requirements for that conviction have been satisfied. The resolution also states that the proposed changes are to be submitted to voters as a single amendment at the November 2026 general election.
The measure would amend Section 241 of the Mississippi Constitution to add the felony-voting rule and would repeal Section 253, which currently allows the Legislature, by a two-thirds vote of both houses, to restore suffrage to persons disqualified because of crime. In practical terms, the bill would shift restoration of voting rights away from legislative discretion and tie it instead to completion of the sentence, including all sentencing requirements. The ballot explanation included in the resolution summarizes the proposal as suspending voting rights upon conviction and restoring them only after sentencing obligations are met.
The bill’s impact would be constitutional rather than statutory: if approved by voters, it would alter Mississippi’s election eligibility rules and the state’s process for restoring voting rights to people with felony convictions. It would affect convicted felons, election officials, and the Legislature by eliminating the current constitutional mechanism for individualized legislative restoration of suffrage for people disqualified by crime.
Because no committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, there is no documented debate or formal vote history to gauge support or opposition. Based on the caption and text alone, the proposal appears aimed at tightening and clarifying felony disenfranchisement rules, with the stated policy choice being that voting rights return only after all sentencing requirements are completed. The main point of contention likely would be whether restoration should depend on sentence completion alone or whether the Legislature should retain authority to restore rights in individual cases.
If adopted by voters, HC27 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to require automatic suspension of voting rights upon felony conviction and to condition restoration on completion of all sentencing requirements. It would also repeal the constitutional provision authorizing the Legislature to restore suffrage by two-thirds vote, thereby removing legislative discretion in restoring voting rights for people disqualified by crime. The change would directly affect election eligibility rules, convicted felons, and the state’s constitutional framework for suffrage restoration.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support, opposition, or amendments. The bill text and caption suggest a policy preference for a stricter, rule-based approach to felony disenfranchisement and rights restoration. In the absence of recorded debate, the overall sentiment can only be described as procedurally neutral from the available materials, with the proposal itself reflecting a clear substantive position on voting rights after felony conviction.
The central point of contention is the treatment of voting rights for people convicted of felonies. Supporters would likely favor making restoration automatic only after all sentencing requirements are completed, while opponents may object to removing the Legislature’s existing power to restore suffrage by supermajority vote and to the broader disenfranchisement effect. Another likely issue is whether the proposal is best understood as clarifying the law or as narrowing opportunities for individualized restoration of voting rights.