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.
What it means for Lake County
State data shows that most people released before trial aren’t charged with new crimes.
In Lake County, about 4% of people released before trial last year were rearrested.
If the amendment is adopted, it would mean the power to decide who remains in jail before trial would rest with appointed judges whom voters can remove at the ballot box but rarely do.
Lake is one of only a handful of Indiana counties where superior court judges aren’t elected. Instead, a local nominating commission vets candidates that the governor ultimately appoints. Voters only decide later in retention elections whether to keep a judge on the bench. This process has resulted in two Lake County Superior Court judges being removed in the system’s history, according to Lake Circuit Court Judge Marissa McDermott.
In May 2025, Gov. Mike Braun appointed former deputy prosecutor Daniel Burke to the Lake Superior Court. He will face voters in November 2028.
Nearly two-thirds of Indiana’s Black voting-age population lives in the counties under the appointment system.
Statewide, most people who are released before trial aren’t charged with new crimes. Of the nearly 96,000 Indiana defendants released after an arrest in 2025, 6.6% were rearrested and charged with another offense before their first case was resolved, according to the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute’s annual report.
The amendment needs a simple majority to pass. If more than half of the voters vote “yes,” the change becomes part of the state constitution.
How it got to the ballot
Since 1851, the Indiana Constitution has guaranteed bail for anyone charged with a crime other than murder or treason.
The proposed amendment has been more than three years in the making. In 2023, as the bail reform movement was building momentum in states like Illinois and New York. Indiana state Sen. Eric Koch, R-Bedford, worked with the state’s prosecutors to introduce a resolution to allow judges to deny bail to suspects deemed a substantial risk to the community.
Responding to criticism that the original language was too vague, lawmakers added a requirement that the state prove by clear and convincing evidence that no-release conditions could keep the public safe. The House and the Senate passed the legislation by overwhelming margins earlier this year.
Supporters of the amendment say Public Question 1 closes a gap that forces judges to release defendants they believe to be dangerous.
“In more than half of the states, courts can order at least some dangerous suspects held without bail — but not in Indiana,” Koch said during Senate debate in January.
The amendment also has support from some judges. Last October, 28 Indiana trial court judges wrote to a state commission studying bail, urging it to back the amendment and to reject cashless bail, which they called “the single most important option” in their discretionary toolkit.
None of the signers serve Lake County or Northwest Indiana. Nearly all preside over southern and south-central Indiana.
In a separate letter, however, one southern Indiana judge urged caution. Shelby Superior Court Judge David Riggins wrote that he was “hesitant to amend our bedrock document when well-crafted legislation can accomplish the same thing,” warning that the amendment’s higher burden of proof might lead to the release of some suspects who would be held today.
How Indiana compares
The ACLU of Indiana, which testified against the amendment at the Statehouse, contends the legislation is unnecessary. The civil rights advocacy group argues that judges already have what they need to protect the public, including higher cash bail, supervision requirements, electronic monitoring and travel restrictions.
“They have a broad toolbox available to them already,” said Danielle Drake, advocacy manager for the ACLU of Indiana. “We just don’t see the value add.”
The organization’s bigger worry is the broad scope of the amendment.
“It’s not limited to any specific violent crimes or any list of specific offenses,” Drake said, contrasting Indiana’s bail amendment with a similar question facing Tennessee voters.
The Tennessee bill names offenses including terrorism, second-degree murder, aggravated rape of a child, and grave torture specifically in its language. It also covers a number of felonies that require serving at least 85% of a sentence.
In May, Alabama voters overwhelmingly approved a similar amendment. Shooting into an occupied home or vehicle and attempted or conspired murder are specific offenses for which judges can deny suspects bail.
Drake said the ACLU is also concerned about uneven use across the state, as some counties have more pretrial alternatives than others.
Too much power for judges?
State Sen. Rodney Pol, D-Chesterton, also opposes the amendment and is urging voters to reject it. He said it would allow judges to jail suspects on almost any charge, whether the crime was violent or if it’s their first offense, if they are deemed a danger to the community.
Pol argues that judges already have the power to keep dangerous defendants locked up by setting high bail; however, supporters point out that the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that bail set too high can amount to unconstitutional denial of bail.
State Rep. Chris Jeter, who sponsored the bill in the House, argued that for some defendants, “no conditions, no amount of money, no GPS monitor, no protective order” can keep the public safe.
Beyond the legal ramifications, Pol worries about the economic hardship this new law can cause some suspects.
“I’m not a big fan of taking away your constitutional rights,” Pol said. “Because at the end of the day, if you are arrested and you are denied bail, you’re likely going to lose your house or whatever apartment that you have, because you’re not going to be able to make your payments. You may lose your family. You may lose your kids. You’re definitely going to lose your job while you wait potentially months, if not a year, to, essentially, make it to trial.”
