Bill
SB 3277
Restores voting rights to Ashley Montana Wimberly; however, SB 3277 died in committee and did not become law.
Overview
- Bill number and title: SB 3277, “Suffrage; restore to Ashley Montana Wimberly.”
- Purpose (as indicated by title): To restore voting rights (suffrage) to a named individual, Ashley Montana Wimberly.
- Status: Died in committee. No further floor action after committee disposition.
- Introduction and actions:
- Introduced: March 19, 2025
- Legislative action: Referred to Judiciary, Division B on March 19, 2025
- Final disposition: Died in Committee on April 3, 2025
What the bill would do
- The bill appears to aim to restore suffrage specifically to one person: Ashley Montana Wimberly.
- Based on the title alone, there are no publicly available details in the provided information about additional beneficiaries, eligibility criteria, procedural steps, or any sunset/recall provisions.
Who is affected
- Primary beneficiary: Ashley Montana Wimberly (the named individual in the bill’s title).
- Indirectly, it would interact with existing laws governing voting eligibility and the process for restoring voting rights, should the text specify any cross-references to current statutes.
Key provisions and changes (as far as the provided information indicates)
- The core change would be restoration of voting rights to a named individual.
- Specific mechanisms, conditions, or durations (e.g., whether restoration is permanent or subject to future change, or whether other disqualifications would apply) are not provided in the available content.
- No broader applicability to other individuals or general eligibility reforms is indicated by the information given.
Procedural/timeline context
- Introduction: March 19, 2025
- Referral: Judiciary, Division B (March 19, 2025)
- Disposition: Died in Committee (April 3, 2025)
- Implication: With the bill dying in committee, it did not advance to the floor for a full chamber vote, nor become law.
Notes and considerations
- The complete text of SB 3277 is not provided here. For a thorough understanding of provisions, qualifications, and potential constitutional or legal implications, the full bill language and analysis would be required.
- Targeted, single-person suffrage restoration bills can raise questions about scope and precedent; readers may want to compare with broader suffrage restoration or ex-offender voting rights reforms in the jurisdiction.
If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to a specific state or add a brief note on typical current-law frameworks for restoring voting rights, once the jurisdiction is confirmed.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
