WASHINGTON, D.C. — Voters in Indiana, Tennessee and Louisiana approved constitutional amendments Nov. 3 expanding restrictions on bail, making it more difficult for certain accused or convicted individuals to secure release from custody.
The measures expand detention authority in criminal cases while raising questions about due process, judicial discretion and the treatment of people who have not been convicted.
According to Stateline, Indiana and Tennessee voters authorized broader restrictions on pretrial release, while Louisiana voters approved a narrower prohibition on bail following conviction for certain offenses against minors.
Pretrial detention involves people who have not been convicted of a crime and remain legally presumed innocent, while post-conviction bail governs whether individuals may be released after a finding of guilt, including while awaiting sentencing or pursuing an appeal.
In Indiana, voters approved Public Question 1, expanding the circumstances under which courts may deny bail to people accused of crimes other than murder or treason.
Under the previous constitutional provision, denial of bail was principally limited to murder and treason cases when the evidence was sufficiently strong.
The new amendment permits courts to deny bail for other offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption of guilt is strong and prosecutors establish by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release would reasonably protect another person or the community.
The amendment requires an individualized determination rather than making detention automatic based solely on the charge.
According to Ballotpedia, approximately 58% of Indiana voters supported the measure in unofficial returns.
Supporters, including Republican state Sen. Eric Koch, argued that the amendment would give judges additional authority to protect communities from individuals accused of dangerous conduct.
Critics raised concerns about the consequences of expanding pretrial detention, particularly for people who may spend extended periods incarcerated before their cases are resolved.
Tennessee voters approved Amendment 1, which expands the categories of criminal offenses for which the constitutional right to bail may be denied.
Previously, Tennessee’s Constitution generally guaranteed bail except in capital cases when the proof was evident or the presumption of guilt was great.
The approved amendment extends that exception to terrorism, second-degree murder, aggravated rape, aggravated rape of a child, grave torture and certain other serious offenses.
It also includes offenses for which a person convicted under the law in effect Nov. 3, 2026, could not be released before serving at least 85% of the imposed sentence.
That provision identifies additional offenses eligible for pretrial bail denial. It does not independently establish a new requirement that every convicted person serve 85% of a sentence.
The amendment requires judges and magistrates to state on the record their reasons for granting or denying bail in covered cases.
Approximately 67% of Tennessee voters supported the amendment, according to election returns.
Louisiana voters approved Amendment 3, prohibiting post-conviction bail for people convicted of aggravated offenses against minors.
Unlike the Indiana and Tennessee measures, Louisiana’s amendment does not expand the categories of accused individuals who can be detained before trial.
Instead, it changes the rules governing release after conviction for offenses defined under Louisiana law.
The constitutional amendment denies post-conviction bail when the offense qualifies as an aggravated offense under state law and the victim is a minor.
Louisiana previously permitted post-conviction bail in certain circumstances, including mandatory eligibility before sentencing for offenses carrying maximum imprisonment of five years or less and discretionary release in more serious cases.
Approximately 68% of Louisiana voters supported the measure.
California provides a contrasting constitutional framework for pretrial detention, shaped by two California Supreme Court decisions limiting judicial authority to deny release.
In its 2021 decision in In re Humphrey, the court held that detaining people solely because they cannot afford monetary bail violates constitutional protections.
Judges must consider a defendant’s ability to pay and whether less restrictive alternatives can adequately address public safety and court appearance concerns.
The court further clarified those protections in its April 2026 decision in In re Kowalczyk, ruling that judges may deny bail in noncapital cases only under the specific exceptions established by Article I, Section 12 of the California Constitution.
The court also held that monetary bail generally must be set at an amount reasonably attainable for the defendant.
The ruling rejected the argument that a separate constitutional provision prioritizing public and victim safety independently authorizes judges to deny bail for additional offenses.
Unlike the amendments approved in Indiana and Tennessee, which expand detention authority, California’s Supreme Court reaffirmed constitutional limits on when accused individuals may be held before trial.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
