Environment
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
StateMississippiIn Committee
HB 4116: Suffrage; restore to Charity Payne-Williams of Tunica County.
Daryl Porter
HB 4116 status: In Committee — Died In Committee (updated Apr 15, 2026).
Source
OpenStates
Confidence
Low
Analysis basis
OpenStates summary
01
What this bill does
Official summary alongside an AI-generated read on where it stands and why.
Overall Score
70OUT OF 100
Score:70/100 civic fit
Risk:Low Risk
Impact:Low Impact 10/100
Constitutionality90%
Bipartisan50%
Public opinion80%
Bill summary
What changes
The bill aimed to restore voting rights to Charity Payne-Williams.
Who is affected
Charity Payne-Williams of Tunica County.
Requirements and enforcement
Required majority approval by the House and Senate.
Costs and funding
Minimal administrative cost.
When it takes effect
Legislative session ended; the bill died in committee.
Potential benefits
Reinstates an individual's right to vote.
Risks and tradeoffs
Relies on individual legislative bills rather than a uniform standard or judicial process.
What is still unknown
The original reason for the loss of suffrage and why this individual was selected for a private bill are not stated.
02
Impact analysis
✦ AI analysisModeled effects across six domains, estimated from bill text and comparable legislation.
Economy
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Society
Positive outlook
80%
Benefits
- Restores fundamental civil rights to an individual
- Encourages individual civic participation
- Provides a pathway for rights reinstatement
Risks
- Lacks consistent standards for restoration
- Reliance on discretionary legislative process
- Potential for inequity in case-by-case evaluation
Technology Industry
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Civic Accountability
Positive outlook
60%
Benefits
- Ensures public visibility of rights restoration
- Establishes a legislative record for the restoration
- Provides an opportunity for constituent advocacy
Risks
- Susceptible to political favoritism
- Inefficient use of legislative time for private matters
- Lack of objective, transparent criteria
Public Health & Safety
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
03
How trustworthy & consequential it is
Sourcing already shown above, this is what the analysis found worth flagging.
Source
OpenStates
Official bill text or data from OpenStates.
Confidence
Low
Information is limited or incomplete.
Analysis basis
OpenStates summary
Source used for this bill's analysis.
Source note
The private bill process lacks clear, uniform criteria for suffrage restoration compared to judicial pathways.
Analysis scope
Source provided is limited to an OpenStates summary.
04
Where it stands
Official record- IntroducedComplete
- CommitteeCurrent
- Chamber votesUpcoming
- Final agreementUpcoming
- GovernorUpcoming
- EnactedUpcoming
05
How it affects your district
✦ Personalized
Set your location
Add your district to see how this bill may affect your community and who to contact.
Your Representatives
Your representatives appear here once you add your location.
06
Take action
Contact your representatives
Let them know how you feel about this bill.
Share your view
Join the discussion and see what others are saying.
Track this bill
Stay updated on progress and changes.