Indiana bail amendment advances toward November ballot

A proposal to amend Indiana’s Constitution to allow judges to deny bail for certain “dangerous” defendants moved one step closer to the ballot Thursday after getting bipartisan support from the Senate.

Lawmakers approved Senate Joint Resolution 1 in a 43–2 vote, sending the legislation to the House. If greenlit by that chamber, too, the proposed constitutional change will appear on the November ballot for final consideration by Hoosier voters. Democrat Sens. Lonnie Randolph, of East Chicago, and Greg Taylor, of Indianapolis, cast the only “no” votes.

Supporters say the change would give courts flexibility to prevent violent crime, but critics have warned it could open the door to bias and abuse in Indiana courts before a person is convicted.

If ratified, the amendment would alter Article 1, Section 17 of the Indiana Constitution, which currently guarantees bail for all criminal defendants except those charged with murder or treason when “the proof is evident or the presumption strong.”

Under SJR 1, however, a defendant charged with other offenses could be held without bail if three conditions are met: the defendant poses “a substantial risk” to any other person or the community; the state proves by “clear and convincing evidence” that no release conditions would reasonably protect public safety; and “the proof is evident or the presumption strong.”

Resolution author Sen. Eric Koch, R-Bedford, told colleagues that the measure is one of three bills this session “that work in harmony with each other.”

Senate Bill 3, which sets the exact language voters will see on the ballot, additionally passed out of the Senate on Thursday in a 36-9 vote, largely along party lines.

Senate Bill 2 advanced to the House earlier this week and would further add due-process protections in statute if the constitutional change is approved.

“In more than half of the states, courts can order at least some dangerous suspects held without bail — but not in Indiana,” Koch said. “SJR 1 amends the Indiana Constitution to allow courts to hold dangerous suspects without bail if releasing them from jail would threaten the public.”

Bail tied to ‘risk,’ not just charges

Koch noted that federal courts already deny bail to defendants in some cases and argued Indiana should have similar tools.

“In order to protect Hoosiers from violent crime,” he said, the amendment would give Indiana’s criminal justice system “the flexibility to use a policy that most of the country already enjoys.”

“This is about the people of Indiana and their safety,” Koch emphasized.

During floor debate, Taylor pressed Koch on whether the amendment would allow bail to be denied even when a defendant is charged with a nonviolent misdemeanor.

Koch maintained the change “doesn’t relate to the charged offense. Rather, he said, “it is a dangerous risk assessment of that offender.”

Taylor called that distinction troubling, though.

“It’s not based on the charge — it’s based on the person, which makes this even more egregious,” Taylor said. “If you don’t think there are some judges out here that may have bias in their community of certain people, then you haven’t been to court in Indiana.”

Still, Taylor acknowledged the amendment process ultimately puts the question in voters’ hands.

“I don’t like the premise of this constitutional amendment,” he said. “But I do like the fact that the people of the state of Indiana will have a chance to actually chime in on this issue.”

Koch pointed to multiple Indiana cases in which judges were required to release defendants on bail despite serious safety concerns.

“In these cases, the judges had no choice but to release these suspects because of the current constitutional language,” Koch said.

He declined to name specific Indiana counties but described a 2022 case in which a man charged with domestic battery — already on probation and facing multiple pending cases involving different victims — was released on bail and later killed his girlfriend before taking his own life.

Koch also cited two similar 2023 cases involving repeat violations and subsequent homicides.

“My colleagues,” Koch said, “let’s send this matter ultimately to the voters later this year.”

How the constitutional amendment process works

Indiana requires proposed constitutional amendments to pass two separately elected General Assemblies before being submitted to voters. SJR 1 was first approved in 2023 and cleared part of its second legislative hurdle with Thursday’s vote.

If the amendment gets full approval from the House, a public question will appear on the November general election ballot, where it must receive approval from a majority of voters casting ballots to take effect.

Per language in Senate Bill 3, Public Question 1 would inform Hoosiers that, “Currently, under the Constitution of the State of Indiana, a person charged with murder or treason is not entitled to be released on bail if the proof is evident or the presumption strong.”

Voters would then be asked a yes or no question:

“Shall the Constitution of the State of Indiana be amended to provide that a person charged with an offense other than murder or treason is not entitled to bail if: (1) the proof is evident or the presumption strong; and (2) the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably protect the safety of any other person or the community.”

Lawmakers clashed over the proposed ballot language on Thursday.

While Sen. Rodney Pol , D-Chesterton, said he supported allowing voters the ability to weigh in, he questioned whether the public question’s wording adequately conveys how broadly bail denial could apply.

“The penalty that is involved is dire,” Pol said, arguing that the language does not make clear that defendants charged with nonviolent or misdemeanor offenses could still be held without bail if a judge deems them dangerous.

Koch responded that he intentionally worked to keep the ballot question “accurate, but also as brief as I could and as neutral as I could.” He warned, too, that a longer or more detailed summary could confuse voters or skew their understanding of the issue.

Taylor additionally argued the question is “leading” and fails to tell voters “the whole story.” He drew parallels to past constitutional amendments that produced unintended consequences.

Indiana lawmakers have debated changing the state’s constitutional right to bail for years, framing the issue as a balance between public safety and civil liberties.

Supporters argue the current system forces judges to release defendants who pose clear risks, while opponents warn expanded detention authority could disproportionately affect marginalized communities.

“You can’t expect me to stand here and trust the court system with the lives and the freedom of my people,” said Taylor, who is Black. “You may feel safe with a judge determining if you’re dangerous — if you’re a danger to the public and other people — but I’ve been through it before, buddy.”

“I’ve been picked on because I look dangerous,” he continued. “The bottom line is (we should) respect the fact that my community deserves the true question on a ballot, just like yours.”

The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, nonprofit news organization that covers state government, policy and elections.