Clinton County Daily News has received questions from readers about two proposed amendments to the Indiana Constitution that will appear on the Nov. 3, 2026, general election ballot.
To help voters understand the questions, the following information includes the exact ballot language, what a “yes” or “no” vote means, and arguments from supporters and opponents where available. Voters are encouraged to review the information and conduct their own research before casting their ballots.
Public Question 1: Bailable Offenses and Substantial Risk Standard Amendment
Exact ballot question:
“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. 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.
(This question concerns Article 1, Section 17 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.)”
Arguments in favor — Yes
A “yes” vote supports amending the Indiana Constitution to allow courts to deny bail to people charged with offenses other than murder or treason when the evidence against them meets the constitutional standard and the state proves that no release conditions would reasonably protect public safety.
Supporters argue the amendment would give judges another tool to protect the public when a defendant poses a substantial risk to others or the community.
State Sen. Eric Koch (R) said, “This resolution moving forward is a great step toward ensuring our communities are protected from those who pose a threat.”
State Rep. Chris Jeter (R) described the proposal as a public safety amendment and argued that it would allow courts to hold individuals who pose a threat to the public when release conditions cannot adequately address the risk.
Arguments against — No
A “no” vote opposes the constitutional amendment and would retain the existing constitutional restrictions on denying bail.
Opponents argue the amendment could expand pretrial detention, allowing people who have not been convicted of a crime to remain in jail based on a court’s assessment of future risk.
State Sen. Greg Taylor (D) raised concerns about how judges might apply the standard, saying, “It’s not based on the charge — it’s based on the person, which makes this even more egregious.” He also expressed concern about potential judicial bias.
The ACLU of Indiana opposes the amendment, arguing that its language could result in more people being held in Indiana’s already overcrowded jails before conviction. The organization argues that lawmakers should focus on reforming the cash bail system rather than expanding pretrial detention.
Public Question 2: Residency Requirements for City and Town Court Judges Amendment
Exact ballot question:
“Shall the Constitution of the State of Indiana be amended to permit the judge of a city or town court to reside in: (1) the county in which the court is located; or (2) the bordering county closest to the city or town in which the court is located?
(This question concerns Article 6, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.)”
Arguments in favor — Yes
A “yes” vote supports changing the Indiana Constitution to allow city and town court judges to live in the county where the court is located or in the bordering county closest to the city or town.
Supporters argue the amendment would expand the pool of qualified candidates, particularly in rural communities where fewer attorneys may be available to serve as judges.
State Rep. Michael Aylesworth (R-11) said, “Lawyers who could later serve as judges have become increasingly scarce in more rural areas of the state. With older lawyers retiring and not enough new ones to replace them, rural communities are limited when it comes to legal services.”
Arguments against — No
A “no” vote opposes the amendment and would retain the existing constitutional residency requirements for city and town court judges.
Under the current requirements described in election materials, city and town court judges must reside in the city or town where they serve.
No formal opposition arguments were identified in the information provided for this question. However, voters who oppose the amendment may prefer to retain the existing requirement that judges live in the communities where they preside.
Voters Encouraged to Review Both Questions
Clinton County Daily News has made an effort to present the ballot language and the available arguments on both sides of these proposed constitutional amendments.
The goal is to give voters time to consider the questions, conduct their own research and make informed decisions when completing their ballots.
For additional information, voters can review the Indiana Election Division’s official 2026 election materials at IndianaVoters.com.