This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The “reasonable time” permitted under many state statutes can quickly stretch into months, as in the case of Jessica Jauch, a resident of Choctaw County in Mississippi. A Mississippi grand jury indicted Jauch on felony drug charges, issuing a warrant for her arrest that ultimately ended in her incarceration.
For this action to be effective, the Senate would need to also vote on this bill to take the drug off Schedule I, which currently makes its possession and distribution (and the use of radio to promote it), a federal felony. Then the President would have to sign the bill.
The Mississippi Constitution denies the vote to any person “convicted of murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement or bigamy.” Department of Justice “precleared” Mississippi’s provision to permit it to enter effect. That brings us to Harness v.
A reasonable conclusion to draw from these textual features is that an affirmative act of government is required to restore what the government has taken away by its affirmative decision to prosecute and convict a person of a felony. This latest ruling is part of a wave of legislation and litigation surrounding felony disenfranchisement.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content