Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Voter Rolls topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Madison County election attorney recommends purging convicted felons from voter rolls; commissioners approve report

5730587 · September 5, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County attorney presented a pre-election statutory review of convicted, disenfranchising offenses on the rolls and commissioners voted to purge names found to be ineligible.

Madison County election officials moved on Monday to remove from the voter rolls people identified in county records as having been convicted of disenfranchising crimes, a vote commissioners approved after the county attorney recommended the action.

County attorney Mr. Spence told the commission a statutory review was required about two months before the November election and that the generated report lists people who have pled guilty or been convicted of crimes that the attorney characterized as “disenfranchising.” He recommended that any names from that list found on the active voter rolls be purged.

The commission voted to accept the attorney’s report and directed staff to purge names identified as ineligible. Commissioner Denton moved to accept the report and Commissioner Pierce seconded; the motion passed with the commission answering “aye” and no recorded opposition.

Commission discussion and the attorney’s remarks emphasized that the review is a pre-election statutory step. The record shows commissioners also reviewed district-level counts related to purges: District 1, 16; District 2, 20; District 3, 39 (as stated in the meeting). The commission did not specify individual names in the public record during the meeting.

The action was described as an administrative compliance step rather than a policy change. The attorney and staff did not cite a specific statute by number during the public meeting; the attorney said the timing follows “the statute” requiring the review two months before the November election.