Indiana voters changed their state constitution twice on Tuesday, November 3, approving a major rewrite of the state's bail rules and a smaller change to where city and town judges may live. The Associated Press called both questions on election night, and with more than nine in ten precincts reporting on Wednesday morning, neither result was in doubt.

Public Question 1, the bail amendment, drew about 58 percent support in the AP count — the Indiana Capital Chronicle's earlier election-night snapshot, at 84 percent of votes tallied, put it at 59 percent. Public Question 2, on judge residency, drew about 62 to 63 percent. Both measures now go forward for certification with the rest of Indiana's unofficial results.

Source: Associated Press election results, Indiana Public Questions 1 and 2

What the bail amendment actually changes

Until this vote, Article 1, Section 17 of the Indiana Constitution — a guarantee that dates to 1851 — gave every defendant a right to bail except in murder or treason cases. That was true even when a judge believed the person was likely to commit another crime while awaiting trial. The only question a judge could weigh was whether bail should be set, and at what amount, not whether release itself was safe.

The amendment removes that wall. A judge may now deny bail altogether for any offence when two tests are met: the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption strong, and the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions would reasonably protect the safety of any other person or the community. In plain terms, prosecutors who want a defendant held must now prove dangerousness in court, not just argue for a higher bond.

The new text keeps procedural protections in place. A defendant the state wants held without bail is entitled to an attorney and to a hearing, and can appeal the judge's decision. Those safeguards were part of the amendment's design as it moved through the legislature, and they will shape the first courtroom fights over how the new standard is applied.

Why supporters wanted it — and why critics pushed back

Supporters, including Governor Mike Braun, who publicly urged voters to approve the measure, argued that the old rule forced judges to release people accused of repeated violent offences even when the risk was obvious. The Indiana Criminal Justice Institute found that 7 percent of defendants released on bail or on their own recognizance statewide last year were rearrested and charged with a new offence while awaiting trial — the figure cited most often in the campaign for the amendment.

Source: Indiana Capital Chronicle

Critics, including the ACLU of Indiana, warned of the other side of that ledger: defendants who have not been convicted of anything can now spend months in jail awaiting trial. The Capital Chronicle reported that opponents feared people accused of misdemeanours or low-level felonies could be swept into no-bail detention, and that attempts in the legislature to limit the amendment's reach were turned back. Both concerns — public safety on one side, due process on the other — are now in the hands of Indiana's trial judges.

The second, quieter change

Public Question 2 amends Article 6, Section 6. It allows the judge of a city or town court to live in the county where the court sits, or in the bordering county closest to that city or town, instead of having to reside inside the jurisdiction itself. Supporters presented it as a practical fix for smaller communities that struggle to find local candidates for part-time judgeships; it passed with the larger of the night's two margins.

How it got to the ballot — and what happens next

Indiana does not let its legislature amend the constitution alone. A proposed amendment must pass two successive general assemblies and then win a public vote. The bail amendment cleared the assemblies elected in 2023 and 2026 — the State Senate approved it 43-2 and the House 75-11, according to Ballotpedia's record of the measure — before reaching Tuesday's ballot. A third local question on Tuesday's Indiana ballots, on a casino in the northeast of the state, failed in each county that voted on it, local broadcasters reported.

What happens next is certification, then courtrooms. Indiana's results remain unofficial until the state canvass is complete; once the amendments are certified, prosecutors can begin asking judges to hold defendants under the new standard, and defence lawyers can begin testing its limits on appeal. For Indiana's growing Punjabi community — families settled around Indianapolis and along the I-65, I-70 and I-80/90 trucking corridors — the change is practical as much as political: anyone charged with an offence in Indiana, citizen or not, will now face a bail hearing in which the state can argue for detention itself, with a lawyer, a hearing and an appeal as the protections on the other side.