Environment
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
StateMississippiIn Committee
HB 4160: Suffrage; restore to Herman Howard of Hinds County.
Fabian Nelson
HB 4160 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
50OUT OF 100
Score:50/100 civic fit — mixed
Risk:Low Risk
Impact:Low Impact 5/100
Constitutionality50%
Bipartisan50%
Public opinion50%
Bill summary
What changes
The bill would have restored suffrage (voting rights) to a specific individual, Herman Howard.
Who is affected
Herman Howard of Hinds County, Mississippi.
Requirements and enforcement
The bill required legislative approval to bypass standard disenfranchisement protocols.
Costs and funding
Not stated in the available source.
When it takes effect
The bill died in committee during the 2026 session.
Potential benefits
Provides a path for an individual to reclaim their right to vote.
Risks and tradeoffs
The use of private legislative bills for suffrage restoration lacks consistent criteria and due process, potentially leading to unequal treatment of citizens.
What is still unknown
The original cause of the individual's disenfranchisement is not provided.
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
Mixed / Neutral
50%
Benefits
- Restoration of fundamental voting rights for an individual
- Encouragement of civic engagement for the subject
- Recognition of individual rehabilitation
Risks
- Lack of standardized, uniform application of rights restoration
- Creates reliance on legislative action for personal rights
- Potential for disparate treatment based on political access
Technology Industry
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Civic Accountability
Mixed / Neutral
50%
Benefits
- Legislative transparency in voting rights restoration process
- Legislature maintains oversight of suffrage qualifications
- Public record of the decision-making process
Risks
- Ad-hoc legislative process lacks consistent due process
- Risk of political bias in individual suffrage cases
- Lack of objective legal standards for restoration
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
Private bills for individual suffrage can create inconsistent legal outcomes
Analysis scope
Source provided is a brief summary 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.