Environment
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
StateMississippiIn Committee
HB 4128: Suffrage; restore to Omar Eugene Magee of Covington County.
Noah Sanford
HB 4128 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
80OUT OF 100
Score:80/100 civic fit
Risk:Low Risk
Impact:Low Impact 5/100
Constitutionality90%
Bipartisan50%
Public opinion50%
Bill summary
What changes
The bill proposes to restore the right to vote to an individual named Omar Eugene Magee.
Who is affected
The individual Omar Eugene Magee of Covington County.
Requirements and enforcement
The bill acts as a legislative exemption to current voting eligibility rules for the named individual.
Costs and funding
Not stated in the available source.
When it takes effect
Not stated in the available source; the bill died in committee.
Potential benefits
Provides the individual with the ability to participate in democratic elections.
Risks and tradeoffs
The use of individual bills for rights restoration lacks standardized legal criteria.
What is still unknown
The reasoning behind the original loss of suffrage and the criteria used for this specific legislative relief are not disclosed.
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 constitutional right to vote.
- Facilitates civic reintegration for the individual.
- Promotes long-term community social participation.
Risks
- Ad hoc nature creates potential for disparate treatment.
- Absence of uniform eligibility standards for restoration.
- Administrative burden on legislature for individual review.
Technology Industry
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Civic Accountability
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
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 process of individual suffrage restoration in Mississippi is non-standardized and lacks clear, publicly accessible criteria.
Analysis scope
Source provided is a summary and metadata only.
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.