What Indiana’s Two 2026 Constitutional Questions Would Change

Indiana general election: November 3, 2026 · Updated October 30, 2026

A quick note on why I put this together: I consider myself a pretty regularly informed voter, but I didn’t even realize these two constitutional amendments were on the ballot until I sat down to review it right before heading out to vote. I haven’t seen them discussed much at all. I wanted one place to reference what each question actually does, the arguments on both sides, and where to read more — for my family and for myself. I hope it’s useful to you too.

Indiana voters will decide two proposed amendments to the state Constitution this year. One concerns when a judge may deny bail before trial. The other concerns where a city or town court judge may live. Here is what each question would do, the main arguments on both sides, and who has publicly taken a position.

A “Yes” vote approves the change described in that question. A “No” vote keeps the current constitutional rule. The questions are separate, so each can pass or fail independently. Each amendment needs a majority of votes cast on that question. (Indiana Election Division’s official summary)

Public Question 1: When judges can deny bail

Under the current Indiana Constitution, people charged with offenses other than murder or treason generally have a right to bail. That does not guarantee someone can afford money bail, and it does not mean release is unconditional. Courts can set release conditions; people who cannot meet a money bond may still remain in jail while their case is pending.

A “Yes” vote would let a judge deny bail for an offense other than murder or treason only if both of these tests are met:

1. The proof is evident or the presumption strong.
2. The state proves by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions would reasonably protect another person or the community.

The amendment does not name specific qualifying crimes. Its text focuses on the strength of the evidence and whether any release conditions could adequately address the safety risk. See the official ballot language.

Why supporters favor it

• It gives judges another public-safety option. Supporters say a judge should be able to hold someone when the evidence is strong and no conditions of release can reasonably protect other people or the community. They describe the intended cases as rare and serious, including cases involving alleged repeat violence.
• The state must meet a demanding standard. The state must prove that release conditions will not adequately protect safety, and a judge decides whether detention is justified. Supporters also point to a separate law, Senate Enrolled Act 2, that establishes procedures and evidence for detention hearings.
• It could prevent harm before it occurs. Prosecutors argue that revoking release after a new offense is too late to prevent the harm.

Why opponents urge caution

• The amendment is not limited to a list of serious charges. Critics say its future-risk standard could be applied more broadly than the violent or repeat-offender cases emphasized by supporters.
• Detention happens before conviction. A person held while awaiting trial can lose work, housing, family contact or access to services. Critics also worry that judgments about who is dangerous could be uneven or affected by bias.
• Judges already have tools to manage risk. The ACLU and public defenders argue that courts can use release conditions and high bail, and question whether the Constitution needs to grant a broader power to detain. High money bail can also keep people jailed because they cannot afford it, even when a judge has not ordered preventive detention.

Who supports or opposes Question 1?

Support: State Sens. Eric Koch and Aaron Freeman, State Rep. Chris Jeter, and representatives of Indiana prosecutors have publicly supported the amendment.

Gov. Mike Braun: Reports on the governor’s position have shifted over the past few days. As of The Indiana Citizen’s October 29 report, Braun’s public video discussed the measure without explicitly telling voters how to vote, though his office told 13News he supports it. In an October 30 radio interview with WOWO, Braun said directly that he supports Question 1 and would put public safety first.

Opposition: The ACLU of Indiana, Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith, State Sens. Greg Taylor and Rodney Pol, and the Indiana AFL-CIO have opposed it or raised concerns. The ACLU focuses on the breadth of the language, pretrial liberty and jail impacts. The Indiana AFL-CIO has warned that expanded detention authority could affect workers involved in strikes or workplace protests. Indiana’s major political parties had not issued official positions, according to October 29 reporting.

WFYI’s October 28 report covers the arguments from prosecutors, public defenders, lawmakers and advocates. The ACLU of Indiana’s page on the amendment explains its opposition.

Public Question 2: Where city and town court judges may live

Currently, city and town court judges must live in the municipality where they serve. A “Yes” vote would let a judge live anywhere in the county where the court is located, or in the bordering Indiana county closest to the city or town. The closest county is determined by measuring the shortest distance from the municipality’s limits to the county line.

City and town courts hear matters including local ordinance violations, traffic cases, infractions and misdemeanors. This amendment changes the judge’s residency area; it does not change the court’s jurisdiction.

Why supporters favor it

• It could expand the pool of judicial candidates. Supporters say smaller and rural communities can have trouble finding local attorneys willing or able to serve as judges. Letting a judge live elsewhere in the county or in the nearest neighboring county could make it easier to fill a position.
• It retains a geographic limit. A judge would still have to live in the county where the court is located or in the closest bordering Indiana county.

Why opponents urge caution

• Living in the community may support local connection and accountability. Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith argues that judges should live in the communities whose cases they hear, where they can better understand local people and circumstances.
• A judge could live outside the town or city. The change could put a judge farther from the municipality than the current rule allows. Voters may view that as a reasonable trade-off for a wider candidate pool, or as a loss of local connection.

Who supports or opposes Question 2?

Support: State Rep. Michael Aylesworth, who sponsored the proposal, and State Sen. Aaron Freeman have supported it. They cite shortages in the pool of local attorneys and the need for more flexibility, particularly in rural areas.

Opposition: Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith has opposed it, arguing that judges should remain connected to the communities they serve. The ACLU of Indiana has said it has no official position on Question 2. The Indiana Democratic and Republican parties had not issued official positions, according to October 29 reporting.

Gov. Mike Braun (unclear): Braun’s video on the bail amendment did not address Question 2, and his office did not tell The Indiana Citizen where he stands. WOWO’s October 30 report on his radio interview is internally inconsistent: its headline says Braun supports both amendments, but the article text says he opposes Question 2, agreeing with Beckwith. Until there is a clearer statement, treat his position on Question 2 as uncertain.

For the sponsor’s explanation, see the Indiana House Republicans’ release about Rep. Aylesworth’s proposal. The Indiana Citizen’s October 29 report summarizes public positions on both questions.

Questions to consider

• Question 1: How much additional authority should judges have to detain someone before conviction when the state argues that no release conditions can protect the public?
• Question 2: How much should a judge’s residence within the town matter compared with the need to attract qualified candidates?

Sources and further reading

• Indiana Election Division, 2026 Indiana Election Legislation Summary — official ballot wording and ratification information for both amendments.
• WFYI, Indiana voters face decision on bail rights in 2026 election — reporting on Question 1, including views from supporters, opponents, prosecutors and public defenders.
• The Indiana Citizen, Beckwith urges Hoosiers to reject amendments as Braun avoids taking explicit position — recent reporting on political leaders’ stated positions on both questions.
• WOWO, Governor Mike Braun on the proposed constitutional amendments — October 30 radio interview with Gov. Braun (note the headline/text discrepancy on Question 2 described above).
• ACLU of Indiana, Constitutional Amendment Restricting Access to Bail (SJR 1) — the ACLU’s explanation and opposition arguments.
• State Sen. Aaron Freeman’s statement on Senate Enrolled Act 2 — his explanation of the companion bill’s bail-hearing guidelines.
• Indiana House Republicans, Rep. Aylesworth authors legislation to help Indiana’s rural judicial shortage — the sponsor’s stated case for Question 2.
• Ballotpedia News, Indiana voters to decide on amendment expanding residency options for city and town court judges — background on city and town courts and the residency proposal.
• Ballotpedia News, Indiana advances a bail-related constitutional amendment to voters — legislative background on Question 1 and similar measures in other states.

This guide summarizes the proposed amendments and publicly reported arguments. It does not recommend a vote. For the official ballot language, consult the Indiana Election Division’s summary.