Amendment 1: Bail eligibility
Article I, Section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution · Last verified October 13, 2026
Just the facts
Plain-English summary
Today the Tennessee Constitution guarantees bail before trial for every charge except capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great. This amendment would let a judge hold a person without bail before trial for a longer list of charges — terrorism, second-degree murder, aggravated rape of a child, aggravated rape, grave torture, and any offense that, as of November 3, 2026, requires a convicted person to serve at least 85% of the sentence — when the proof is evident or the presumption great. Judges would have to record their reasons for granting or denying bail in those cases. A YES vote adopts the new language; a NO vote keeps the current language.
Official summary (Attorney General)
This amendment changes Article I, section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution by allowing a court to hold a defendant without bail before trial when that defendant is accused of: an offense punishable by the death penalty, an act of terrorism, second degree murder, aggravated rape of a child, aggravated rape, grave torture, or any crime for which a convicted person would be required to serve eighty-five percent of their sentence. This amendment requires courts to state on the record the reasons for their decision to grant or deny bail in those cases.
Official ballot question
Verbatim from the Tennessee Secretary of State.
Fiscal note
The Fiscal Review Committee estimates a one-time increase in local government expenditures of $9,400 in FY 2026-27 for the cost of publishing a longer sample ballot. The note does not estimate any other costs. Read the fiscal note.
How the legislature voted
A proposed amendment must pass two consecutive General Assemblies — a majority in the first, two-thirds in the second — before it goes to voters.
| Resolution | Chamber | Date | Yes | No | Present, not voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SJR 919 (113th) | Senate | March 7, 2024 | 22 | 6 | 2 |
| SJR 919 (113th) | House | April 23, 2024 | 82 | 15 | 1 |
| SJR 25 (114th) | Senate | March 17, 2025 | 23 | 6 | 1 |
| SJR 25 (114th) | House | April 21, 2025 | 84 | 10 | 1 |
Full text of the resolutions
Arguments
Each argument is paraphrased from a published source and shown without saying who made it. Order within each column is shuffled. Why?
Reasons to vote YES
- Judges are expected to deny bail in relatively few cases, so the change is not expected to bring a large rise in jail costs or crowding.[1] [2]
- When the bail clause was first written, many more crimes were capital offenses, so judges could hold many more defendants. This restores comparable authority for the most serious crimes of today.[3]
- Judges would have to put their reasons for granting or denying bail on the record, making these decisions public and open to review.[3]
- Under the current rule, a defendant whom a judge considers dangerous can still go free by paying a large bail amount. Letting judges deny bail in these cases keeps release decisions from turning on how much money a defendant has, and removes the incentive to inflate charges or set bail no one could pay just to keep someone jailed.[1] [2] [4]
- Judges currently cannot deny bail for charges like second-degree murder or aggravated rape, even when the evidence is strong and the defendant poses a clear danger. This gives judges the option to keep the most dangerous violent defendants from harming others while they await trial.[1] [3]
- The change gives judges discretion, not a mandate. Bail can still be granted, the "proof is evident or the presumption great" standard still applies, and a defendant can still appeal a denial.[1] [3]
Reasons to vote NO
- Judges already have tools to manage risk: they can set high bail, weigh criminal history and past failures to appear, order no-contact conditions and electronic monitoring, and revoke bail after a hearing.[1] [3] [5]
- Judges bring their own biases into the courtroom, so wider power to deny bail could fall hardest on poor defendants and defendants of color.[4]
- Studies find that holding more people before trial does not reliably reduce future crime, and violent crime in Tennessee has already been falling.[3]
- Even a short time in jail before trial can make it harder for a defendant to help prepare a defense.[5]
- The change reaches well beyond the six crimes named on the ballot. The 85% clause adds dozens of offenses — most reports put the count above 70 — that voters will not see listed, so voters and defendants lack clear notice of which charges lose the right to bail.[1] [3] [5] [6]
- More pretrial detention means more people in county jails that are already near capacity, and the state does not reimburse counties for those costs. Counties without beds may have to release people held on lesser charges or build new jails, which can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The official fiscal note covers only ballot printing.[1] [5] [7]
- People charged with a crime are presumed innocent, and many cases end in dismissal: about one in five statewide over 2011–2017, and one in three violent cases in Shelby County in December 2025. Holding people for months before trial can cost them their job, home, and family stability, with nothing given back if the case falls apart.[1] [5]
- The text does not say bail may be denied for these charges; it removes the right to bail for them. That makes detention the starting point rather than the exception.[1] [2]
How an amendment passes. Each amendment is a yes-or-no question listed directly after the governor's race. It passes only if both are true:
- it gets more "yes" votes than "no" votes, and
- its "yes" votes are more than half of all votes cast in the governor's race.
Because of the second rule, leaving an amendment question blank works against it the same way a "no" vote does. Source: Tennessee Secretary of State.More on how this guide works.
Sources (7)
Listed in numeric order. Numbers match the markers in the text above.
- Tennessee Amendment 1 asks voters to change bail rules (WKMS) — wkms.org, accessed October 13, 2026
- Amendment stripping right to bail for some felonies closer to Tennessee voters' ballots (Tennessee Lookout) — tennesseelookout.com, accessed October 13, 2026
- Amendment No. 1 seeks to limit Tennessee right to bail (Nashville Banner) — nashvillebanner.com, accessed October 13, 2026
- Tennessee voters will decide whether those accused of some felonies lose right to pretrial bail (Tennessee Lookout) — tennesseelookout.com, accessed October 13, 2026
- What's on the ballot in Tennessee? (ACLU of Tennessee) — aclu-tn.org, accessed October 13, 2026
- Stockard on the Stump: Sexton and bail bond industry headed for collision (Tennessee Lookout) — tennesseelookout.com, accessed October 13, 2026
- Bail industry gears up for battle over next Tennessee constitutional amendment (Tennessee Lookout) — tennesseelookout.com, accessed October 13, 2026