Indiana voters will decide on two proposed constitutional amendments concerning bail eligibility and city and town court judges’ residency in the Nov. 3 general election.
The proposed amendments will appear alongside races for federal, state and local offices on the ballot. Voters can approve or reject each amendment separately. Each amendment will take effect if it receives a majority of the votes cast on that question.
How do constitutional amendments reach the ballot?
Indiana does not allow residents to place proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot through petition signatures. Proposals must pass through the Indiana General Assembly — Indiana’s legislative branch — before appearing on the ballot.
Under Article 16 of the Indiana Constitution, a proposed amendment must receive support from a majority of all elected members in each legislative chamber. After the next legislative election, both chambers must approve it again before sending it to voters at the next general election.
Bail amendment
Currently, Article 1, Section 17 of Indiana’s Bill of Rights guarantees bail for offenses other than murder or treason, when bail is barred if “the proof is evident, or the presumption strong.”
The amendment proposes another exception, removing the eligibility for defendants who present a substantial risk to another person or the community.
For offenses other than murder or treason, the state would also have to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that no conditions on the defendant’s release could “reasonably” keep another person or the community safe.
A "yes" vote would approve this additional exception under the Indiana Constitution. A “no” vote would keep the current constitutional provision unchanged.
Sen. Eric Koch, R-Bedford, originally authored the resolution proposing the bail amendment in 2023 and reintroduced it in December 2025. The Indiana Senate approved the resolution 43-2 in January 2026.
The Indiana House approved it 75-11 in February 2026, clearing the way for the proposed amendment to appear on the November ballot.
“It is important to ensure our communities are protected from those who wish to do harm,” Koch said in a January news release.
In the same release, Koch referenced 23 states with similar constitutional provisions that Indiana would join them if voters approve the amendment.
However, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana opposes the amendment, arguing the proposal’s wording is unclear and too broad. In a statement on its website, the ACLU argued the amendment could leave more people jailed without conviction, adding to overcrowding in the state’s jails.
Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, one of two senators who voted against the resolution, also criticized the proposal. During a January Senate debate, Taylor questioned making bail decisions based on an assessment of the defendant rather than the charge.
“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,” Taylor said during the debate.
Judge residency amendment
Article 6, Section 6 of the Indiana Constitution requires county, township and town officers to live in the jurisdiction they serve, including judges.
The amendment would expand where city and town court judges could live, allowing them to live anywhere within the court’s county or in the closest bordering Indiana county. The bordering county would be determined by the shortest distance from the city or town’s boundaries to the county line, according to the proposed amendment.
Rep. Michael Aylesworth, R-Hebron, introduced the resolution proposing the judge residency amendment in 2023 to help address city and town judicial shortages.
Lawmakers approved it that year and again in 2025, when the Indiana House voted 81-7 and the Indiana Senate voted 43-3.
According to 2024 data from the American Bar Association, Indiana had 2.26 lawyers per 1,000 residents — ranking the seventh lowest of U.S. states in lawyers per capita.
"Lawyers who could later serve as judges have become increasingly scarce in more rural areas of the state," Aylesworth said in a news release from Indiana House Republicans. "With older lawyers retiring and not enough new ones to replace them, rural communities are limited when it comes to legal services."
Voting "yes" would approve those expanded residency options; voting “no” would retain the requirement that judges live in the city or town they serve.
