Public Question 1Constitutional amendment · Put on the ballot by lawmakers
Allow judges to deny bail
Explain it like I'm 5
Indiana usually lets people accused of crimes get bail before trial, except in murder or treason cases. This change would let a judge keep someone in jail before trial when the evidence is strong and no safety rules could protect other people.
Yes vote
Judges could deny bail for offenses beyond murder or treason when the proof is strong and the state clearly proves that no release conditions would reasonably protect another person or the community.
No vote
Indiana keeps its current constitutional rule, generally preserving bail except when someone is charged with murder or treason and the proof is evident or presumption strong.
The question to ask yourself
Is preventing possible harm before trial worth expanding detention despite the accused person not yet being convicted?
The case for
- Gives judges a tool to prevent serious harm when monitoring, no-contact orders, or bail cannot protect people.
- Supporters say the required evidence and clear-and-convincing safety showing limit detention to exceptional cases.
- Could address cases where an accused person might harm a victim or community member while awaiting trial.
Backed by: Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, Sen. Eric Koch, Sen. Aaron Freeman, Rep. Chris Jeter, Indiana House Republican Caucus
The case against
- Allows detention before conviction based on predictions about future danger, despite the presumption of innocence.
- The amendment does not list specific crimes, so critics fear broad or unequal application.
- More pretrial detention could threaten jobs, housing, family stability, and jail capacity.
Opposed by: ACLU of Indiana, Indiana Public Defender Council, Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith, Indiana AFL-CIO
- Money
- No direct tax or cost estimate is stated in the sources; possible jail and court costs are not estimated.
- Don't be misled
- It is misleading to say the amendment automatically denies bail for any accusation, because strong proof and clear-and-convincing proof that no release conditions can protect people are required.