10/08/2026
📖 Know before you go!
Two questions on your November ballot deserve your attention.
In addition to voting for candidates, Indiana voters will decide whether to make two changes to our state Constitution. I want to help explain what these questions mean so you can make an informed decision.
PUBLIC QUESTION #1:
BAIL AND PUBLIC SAFETY
Currently, Indiana’s Constitution guarantees the right to bail for people charged with crimes except for murder or treason.
This amendment would allow judges to deny bail for other criminal charges if the evidence is strong and the state proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that no conditions of release would reasonably protect another person or the community.
Voting YES: Expands a judge’s authority to hold someone in jail while awaiting trial when these public safety requirements are met.
Voting NO: Keeps the current constitutional protections for bail in place.
How do other states handle this?
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 33 states allow judges to deny bail before trial under certain circumstances beyond the traditional capital-offense exception. Of those, 24 states have amended their constitutions to expand when bail may be denied, while nine others do not have an affirmative constitutional right to bail.
Michigan is one example. Its Constitution allows judges to deny bail for certain serious crimes beyond murder and treason, including first-degree criminal sexual conduct (serious sexual assault), kidnapping for ransom or extortion, armed robbery, certain repeat violent felony offenses, and violent felonies committed while someone is already out on bail, probation, or parole for another violent felony.
Each state has different requirements and protections. Unlike Michigan, Indiana’s proposed amendment does not identify specific crimes. Instead, it would allow judges to deny bail when the required legal standards concerning the evidence and public safety are met.
✔️Why might someone support it?
Supporters argue that judges need greater authority to protect victims and the public when someone presents a serious danger before a trial takes place.
❌Why might someone oppose it?
Opponents raise concerns about the presumption of innocence, the possibility of people being held in jail before being convicted, and whether decisions about someone’s potential dangerousness could be applied unfairly.
PUBLIC QUESTION #2:
WHERE CITY AND TOWN COURT JUDGES CAN LIVE
Currently, Indiana’s Constitution requires city and town court judges to live in the city or town where they serve.
This amendment would allow those judges to live anywhere in the county where their court is located or in the closest bordering Indiana county.
Voting YES: Expands where city and town court judges may live.
Voting NO: Keeps the existing requirement that these judges live in the city or town where they serve.
✔️Why might someone support it?
Supporters argue that smaller communities, particularly rural towns, can struggle to find qualified attorneys willing to serve as judges. Expanding residency requirements could increase the number of eligible candidates.
❌Why might someone oppose it?
Opponents may believe judges should live in the communities they serve to maintain a direct connection with residents and local concerns.
WHY THIS MATTERS
These are proposed amendments to the Indiana Constitution, not ordinary laws. Changes to our Constitution have lasting implications and deserve careful consideration.
Whether you vote YES or NO on either question, I encourage you to understand what is being proposed before heading to the polls on November 3.
An informed voter is an empowered voter.
