In The News
Explore recent coverage, expert commentary, and updates about Public Question 1 from local news outlets and sources across Indiana.
Beckwith, a strident conservative who has called himself a Christian nationalist, is siding with the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, with both raising concerns that allowing judges to jail people who have not yet been convicted could violate due-process rights.
“Our justice system rests on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty,” Beckwith said in a social-media post. “While public safety matters and violent offenders must be held accountable, expanding government authority to deny liberty before conviction raises serious due-process concerns.”
A question on the ballot this year asks Hoosiers whether they support changing the rules concerning bail that are written in the state constitution.
But for those who oppose it, Public Question 1 presents another query: Do you believe in the presumption of innocence?
If you do ― as we do ― then voting "no" is the only correct answer to this (ballot) question.
Critics, including the ACLU, have said the question should not be on the ballot. They argue the amendment could result in innocent Hoosiers being jailed for months without a conviction.
Public Question 1 is a vaguely worded attempt to carve away our Constitutionally guaranteed rights and force Indiana taxpayers to fund more incarceration before someone has been convicted of a crime. Hoosiers should vote NO.
Levi Gonzalez, a policy associate at The Bail Project, an advocacy and bail assistance nonprofit, echoed those concerns. He says such proposals are also not just limited to Indiana. In other states across the country, more laws are “looking to ultimately deprive people of their liberty at a moment where there’s also a lot of political tension and upheaval,” he says. Given what he refers to as a “creeping authoritarianism” in the country, there could be political pressure “to make an example out of people“ arrested at a protest or demonstration.
“I’ve heard the phrase ‘sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.’ Not under this new constitution,” Cunningham said. “It can. It can keep you in jail for a long time.”
In simpler terms, unless prosecutors have a strong murder or treason case against a person, a person is entitled to bail.
“I don’t have that faith,” Katz pointed out. “I have seen too many activist judges. I have seen too many conditions and moments where information was not complete, where a full story about someone’s innocence or lack thereof was not presented.”
Judges already possess the discretion to set high bail amounts when warranted, Katz noted, meaning lawmakers and law enforcement advocates are chasing a false fix that threatens due process.
Our state’s chronic jail overcrowding and pattern of deplorable conditions makes these numbers even more troubling, knowing many are enduring these environments compounded with the destabilizing impacts of pretrial detention. These circumstances have a ripple effect that can cost them their livelihood and stable housing, access to vital healthcare, support for their loved ones, and the practical ability to actively build their legal defense. For someone who may eventually be cleared of all charges, these effects can be devastating.
Unlike states that have listed specific violent or sexual offenses to apply — like Texas and Ohio — Indiana leaves this alarmingly ambiguous. The legislation describes the proposed process to allow judges to consider factors like employment, financial resources, family history, and community ties when deciding bail. This raises obvious concerns about bias and how consistently these standards would be applied across the state. How will people experiencing poverty, housing instability, or challenging family circumstances be impacted, and how could this result in unequal treatment all before any trial has taken place?
On Election Day, Indiana voters will decide whether to give judges broad new powers to keep suspects in jail without bail before trial.
"Public Question 1 would let Indiana judges hold people in jail before trial on nearly any charge if they're deemed too dangerous to release. Currently, the state constitution allows bail except for murder or treason.
Removing the right to bail in more cases would increase the pretrial detention population, since more defendants would be detained pretrial, regardless of their ability to pay. Indiana’s criminal justice system is already overcrowded and underfunded, and this amendment could only exacerbate that.
This is a stark reminder that judges, like anyone else, can make serious errors. The fear of bad or negligent judges abusing their authority isn't hypothetical. It’s real and dangerous. Yet Public Question 1, which will appear on this November's ballot, asks Hoosiers to expand judicial power dramatically by allowing judges to deny bail before trial for offenses beyond murder and treason.
However, the wording of this amendment is intentionally vague and unspecific, and it opens numerous avenues for systematic abuse by judges and courts who, if this amendment passes, will be able to argue that anyone accused of a crime should be held without bail, even if they have not been convicted.
Judges already have substantial authority to impose bail and conditions of release, including supervision and electronic monitoring. The General Assembly should be asking whether these tools are being used effectively before trying to make a sweeping change to the state constitution.
Another principle is at stake that should concern every Hoosier, regardless of how you vote. In America, we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That doesn’t mean dangerous individuals should be free to threaten our communities. It means the government must exercise extraordinary caution before depriving someone of liberty without a conviction.
The amendment contains no limitation to violent felonies. Its language could reach misdemeanor charges if the required findings were established. The ACLU of Indiana opposes the measure, arguing that predictions about dangerousness could expand incarceration before conviction and allow bias to influence who loses their freedom.
That does not mean a minor charge would automatically justify detention. Prosecutors would still have to meet the amendment’s requirements. But its scope is broader than the repeat violent offenders emphasized in supporters’ arguments.
Under Indiana's current constitution, defendants must have some way to secure their release from jail unless they're charged with murder or treason. For any other charge – even when re-offending appears likely – judges have no choice but to set bail.
That's been the case since 1851, when Indiana lawmakers ratified the constitution that remains in place today.
The proposed amendment would allow judges discretion to keep a defendant in jail, regardless of their alleged crime, so long as "the proof is evident or the presumption strong" and the state proves that they present a danger to the community.
Ask anyone in our community what Hoosiers need right now, and I bet no one will answer 'more people behind bars.'"
"We all know investing in quality schools, affordable housing, accessible child care and opportunities to earn a good living are key to getting our state back on track.
A proposed amendment could allow judges to deny bail if they deem the defendant a safety concern.
In the current system, judges can only deny bail if the person is charged with murder or treason. ACLU of Indiana Advocacy Manager Danielle Drake says this new amendment is too vague.
“So, it’s not limited to a specific crime or even specifically a violent crime,” Drake said. “Or any list of offenses that would be able to be met. It applies to any offense that would meet the legal standard that is being proposed to voters.“
As you read this, you have the right to bail. If you were accused of a crime, a judge could not keep you in jail without setting an amount of money you could pay to get out.
The backers of Public Question 1 want to take that right away from you.
Under the Indiana Constitution, a judge can only hold people charged with murder or treason without bail. Everyone else gets the opportunity to pay to fight their case from the outside.
Taking away someone’s liberty before conviction is one of the most serious powers we give the government. Public Question 1 would broaden that power based not only on what someone is accused of, but on who a court believes they may be.