logo
Tennessee Senate advances constitutional amendment to allow judges to deny bail

Tennessee Senate advances constitutional amendment to allow judges to deny bail

Yahoo18-03-2025

A Republican effort to amend the Tennessee Constitution to allow judges to deny bail to some criminal defendants continues to advance through the General Assembly.
Senate Republicans on Monday gave final sign off to add the constitutional amendment to the 2026 gubernatorial ballot for a full public vote, though the measure still faces several hurdles in the House.
The constitutional amendment would give Tennessee judges the ability to deny pre-trial bail release to defendants charged with certain serious crimes like terrorism, second degree murder and rape. The amendment would apply to dozens of criminal offenses.
The bail reform effort has picked up both bipartisan support and opposition, though Republican leadership in both chambers are pushing hard to get the amendment through this session and on to a full state vote.
Opponents of the effort have argued there is a slippery constitutional slope in keeping a defendant in jail if they haven't yet been found guilty, and others have warned an increase in pre-trial detention could harm already overburdened local jail systems with skyrocketing costs.
"We should think long and hard before we push forward on curtailing the rights of the people we represent," Sen. Jeff Yarbro, D-Nashville, said Monday.
Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, R-Franklin, said state courts are currently "hamstrung" by the state Constitution, which currently only allows pre-trial detention for capital offenses.
With a U.S. Supreme Court precedent determining only murder can be considered a capital offense, Johnson said judges' hands are tied if they think defendants charged with a crime like rape would be danger to the community before they go to trial.
"Our No. 1 job up here is public safety," Johnson said. "It's public safety, and to equip our court systems with the tools they need to keep our communities safe."
Sen. London Lamar, D-Memphis, warned Tennesseans could likely see increases in local taxes to pay for the jail space needed. Unlike other bills, there is no clear financial analysis tied to the constitutional amendment. With more defendants held in jail awaiting trial, local communities could bear additional costs.
Sen. Todd Gardenhire, R-Chattanooga, warned his colleagues about the potential for ballooning costs on local governments.
"I've heard nothing from anybody about how we're going to pay for this when it hits the fan. Nothing. Crickets," Gardenhire said, calling hidden costs the "unintended consequence of a good idea." Gardenhire was the sole Republican to vote against the amendment.
Johnson said local authorities like sheriffs and district attorneys have supported the amendment despite potential costs.
"They believe the juice is worth the squeeze," Johnson said.
The Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference last week passed a resolution endorsing the constitutional measure.
"The Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference believes this change to the constitution will enhance public safety, reduce the revolving door of offenders charged with violent and sexual crimes, and will promote greater public confidence in the criminal justice system and the rule of law in this state," the conference said in a statement.
Legal experts have raised concerns about the amendment's vague language, as the amendment voters would see on a state ballot does not list every crime that could be eligible for pre-trial detention. Instead, it references "any other offense" under which a convicted person could not be released before serving at least 85% of a sentence.
Notably, the amendment as written would also allow the legislature to change which offenses qualify in the "any other offense" clause until Nov. 3, 2026. With early voting, this means Tennessee voters could cast a vote for or against the amendment before Nov. 3 and its very definition could be changed by the time polls close.
Jeff Clayton, executive director of the American Bail Coalition, said his organization lobbied House Speaker Cameron Sexton, R-Crossville, last year to eliminate the "85%" offenses or make the language more clear in the amendment. The push to change the wording ultimately did not advance in 2024 and the language was not changed when it was filed this year.
Clayton has been among the most outspoken opponents of the measure, arguing it contradicts an expected presumption of innocence and similar measures have led to skyrocketing costs in states like New Jersey.
"It's not going to fix the crime problem in Tennessee, period," Clayton said. "I don't think anyone has presented any evidence of that. I think throwing in 83 charges is what the Supreme Court would call a scattershot attempt at crime control versus a targeted approach, which is what we support."
The amendment has been a particular interest of Sexton, who has repeatedly pushed for the amendment and unusually sat in on a House Judiciary Committee this session to cast a vote. The speaker rarely openly participates in the committee process, but Sexton directed multiple questions to witnesses in favor of the amendment.
He has also openly admonished the bail industry, which has lobbied against the resolution, in addition to any lawmakers who might be considering opposing the effort.
"If this doesn't pass, the individuals who decide this isn't something they want to vote for are allowing a serial rapist to go free on bail," Sexton said. "You're taking away the ability of the judges to keep the public safe and not giving them the tools to look at that criminal and say it is better to incapacitate them than to have another victim."
Sexton has stressed the amendment wouldn't be a "mandate" on judges, but rather give judges the discretion to restrict pre-trial bail when they deem it prudent.
The amendment has had some bipartisan support. In committee, Rep. G.A. Hardaway, D-Memphis, said he felt the resolution properly balanced the rights of defendants and public safety.
Meanwhile, two Senate Republicans on Monday announced they had changed their mind on the measure. Sen. Rusty Crowe, R-Johnson City, said he felt voters deserved a vote on the issue despite his personal issues with the amendment.
To amend the state Constitution, proposed amendments must be approved by two separate General Assemblies: first by simple majority, and then again after an election year by two-thirds vote. The Senate approved the measure Monday in a 23-6 vote, enough to secure the two-thirds threshold.
The amendment on bail initially passed last year, meaning lawmakers must pass it again this year or in 2026 before it could appear on the November 2026 gubernatorial ballot.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: TN Senate advances constitutional amendment to let judges to deny bail

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Is Trump's troop deployment in LA a prelude to martial law?
Is Trump's troop deployment in LA a prelude to martial law?

Boston Globe

time21 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Is Trump's troop deployment in LA a prelude to martial law?

Neither did Hegseth announced that National Guard members and the Marines will stay in Los Angeles for Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up At a Advertisement This is a Trump made-for-TV spectacle of authoritarianism disguised as law and order. It's likely a prelude to martial law. Rob Bonta, California's attorney general, is Advertisement Protests were sparked last week after Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials conducted several workplace raids in Los Angeles, including a But what began as boisterous but peaceful protests against Trump's anti-immigrant scheme which now demands 'If I didn't ''SEND IN THE TROOPS,'" Trump said Tuesday on social media, Los Angeles 'would be burning to the ground right now,' before he disparaged Bass and Newsom. Yes, there has been looting, and some cars have been burned and vandalized. But Trump is lying about the extent of lawlessness. Trump is following his bad policies with even worse provocations that could portend a modern-day Kent State tragedy with soldiers firing live bullets at protesters. But for Trump, the more chaos, the better. As a White House official said, 'We're happy to have this fight.' To some extent this fight to suppress dissent has been boiling in Trump for five years. During nationwide demonstrations after the police murder of George Floyd in 2020, Trump, then in his first term, asked members of his Cabinet whether protesters could be shot. 'He thought that the protests made the country look weak, made us look weak, and 'us' meant him,' Mark Esper, Trump's former defense secretary, Advertisement Esper recalled Trump saying to now-retired General Mark Milley, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ''Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?' … It was a suggestion and a formal question. And we were just all taken aback at that moment as this issue just hung very heavily in the air.' Ultimately, Trump was talked out of it. That won't happen this time, with an administration packed with people whose only loyalty is to him, not to the Constitution or rule of law. After Tom Homan, Trump's bloviating border czar, If not for the ICE arrest of But not now. Everything in Trump's second administration is designed to codify his authoritarianism. If Trump can convince enough people, especially among his white base, that he alone represents the thin orange line between civilization — as Advertisement Right now, the administration claims the military is in Los Angeles to protect federal buildings and assets — theoretically. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, but neither has he ruled out unleashing US troops on protesters. With his draconian policies, Trump has lit the fuse for what could be a long and difficult summer of protests. With an occupying military force in this nation's second largest city, he has declared war against America itself. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at

Reports: Virginia Democrats outdoing Republicans in raising campaign contributions
Reports: Virginia Democrats outdoing Republicans in raising campaign contributions

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Reports: Virginia Democrats outdoing Republicans in raising campaign contributions

Democratic House of Delegates hopeful Kimberly Pope Adams raised the second-highest amount in Virginia of contributions to House campaigns for the latest campaign reporting period, according to the nonpartisan Virginia Public Access Project. Pope Adams, who has already locked up the Democratic nomination in the 82nd House District, reported a total of $262,048 in money raised for the April 1-June 5 window, based on data from the Virginia Department of Elections that was compiled by VPAP. That trailed only House Speaker Don Scott of Portsmouth, who raised just over $344,000 for the period. Political watchers were keeping a close eye on this round of reports, the last before the crucial June 17 party primaries across Virginia. Like Pope Adams, Scott already has the Democratic nod sewn up. He also does not appear to have any GOP opposition this year. The only House primary next week in the Tri-City area is in District 75 where three Democrats are vying to oppose Republican incumbent Carrie Coyner. In that contest, Lindsey Dougherty continues to outdistance Dustin Wade and Stephen Miller-Pitts. For the reporting period, Dougherty raised $171,695, compared to $136,276 for Wade and $4,471 for Miller-Pitts. As of June 5, Wade showed more than $100,000 in cash on hand over Dougherty and five times more than Miller-Pitts. VPAP reported Dougherty raising the sixth-highest amount of contributions for the period, and Wade the 12th. Dougherty and Miller-Pitts ran against Coyner in the 2019 and 2023 elections, respectively. The 75th District covers all of Hopewell and portions of Chesterfield and Prince George counties. More: The primary menu for June 17: Heavy on the state races and a first time for Petersburg In the 82nd District [Petersburg, Surry County, portions of Dinwiddie and Prince George], Pope Adams continues to run away from GOP incumbent Kim Taylor in campaign contributions. For the latest reporting period, Pope Adams' total was more than four times that of Taylor, who listed receiving $64,489 in donations. Her cash-on-hand amount of $289,468 was eight times more than Taylor's $34,502. The race is a rerun of 2023's race, one of the top three most expensive contests in recent Virginia political history. Taylor squeaked out a victory over Pope Adams by only 53 votes following a recount, and Democrats are clocking the 2025 race as pivotal in holding their slim majority in the House for the next two years. Pope Adams' contributions included $25,000 from the Clean Virginia Fund on April 23, $7,500 from the Jane Fonda Climate PAC on May 14, and three $5,000 donations from Elizabeth Simons on May 29, The Next 50 PAC on April 30 and Fund Her PAC on April 29. Taylor's largest contributions for the period were $20,000 from the Dominion Energy PAC on May 8, $10,000 from the Wren Williams for Delegate campaign on April 24, and identical $7,500 amounts from Friends of Scott Wyatt on April 2 and Chris Runion for Delegate on June 5. The reports indicate Taylor getting three donations of $100 or less, and Pope Adams receiving 1,461. More: House GOP incumbent lauds endorsement from local Democratic group. Democrats cry 'foul' In the 75th District primary, Dougherty received two contributions totaling $80,000 from the super PAC Secure Progress and $35,000 from the campaign of Democratic Del. Dan Helmer. Wade's top donations were $5,000 from himself and two donations from Anita Thurston totaling $4,500. Miller-Pitts' sole contribution of over $100 for the period was $250 from Rhonda Clanton-Davis. Coyner, a Republican seeking her fourth term in the House, received $69,056 in contributions over the period. Her largest donations were $10,000 from Carolyn Williams, $7,500 from Strong Start PAC, and three of $5,000 each from Thomas McInerney, Vision Management Services, and Clean Virginia Fund. Records indicate her having $315,350 in cash on hand as of June 5. The district traditionally leans Republican. Coyner has won re-election with as much as 55% of the vote, but Democrats still target her as vulnerable. In Petersburg, history is being made with the first-ever Democratic primary for the constitutional officer Commissioner of the Revenue. Incumbent Brittani Flowers is being challenged by Mary 'Liz Stith' Howard for the right to be the Democrat on the November ballot. Five years ago, the Virginia General Assembly voted to allow any local-office candidate [except School Board] to seek official party backing. The law went into effect last year, as Petersburg Vice Mayor Darrin Hill received the Democratic nomination for his Ward 2 seat by acclimation. The commissioner primary is the first contested one in Petersburg. Campaign records show Flowers receiving just shy of $3,000 in contributions for the reporting period. Her largest donations were $500 from former state Senate candidate Waylin Ross and $300 from Bernard Flowers Jr. Howard did not record any contributions for the reporting period. Petersburg City Councilor Marlow Jones, who is running as an independent for Virginia's lieutenant governor, raised $700 in donations during the latest reporting period. Five hundred dollars came from three contributions of more than $100. The remaining $200 was split among five contributions of less than $100. To see the latest donation data for any race this year, click on the VPAP website. Bill Atkinson (he/him/his) is an award-winning journalist who covers breaking news, government and politics. Reach him at batkinson@ or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @BAtkinson_PI. This article originally appeared on The Progress-Index: Virginia primary 2025: Campaign finance reports show money pouring in

House to vote on repealing DC local laws on noncitizen voting, policing, immigration enforcement
House to vote on repealing DC local laws on noncitizen voting, policing, immigration enforcement

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

House to vote on repealing DC local laws on noncitizen voting, policing, immigration enforcement

The Brief House Republicans are voting on three bills that would override D.C. laws on noncitizen voting rights, limiting police powers, and restricting immigration enforcement cooperation. One bill, HR 884, repeals D.C.'s 2022 law allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections. HR 2056 would dismantle D.C.'s sanctuary city protections by mandating cooperation with federal immigration authorities. WASHINGTON - The House of Representatives are voting Tuesday on three Republican-backed bills that would override several local D.C. laws. The bills would roll back D.C. efforts expand voting rights for non-citizens, restrict police and force the District to work with immigration enforcement efforts on a federal level. D.C. passed the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act in 2022, granting noncitizens in D.C. the right to vote in local elections. That includes mayoral races, D.C. Council positions, attorney general, ANC members, attorney general and D.C. ballot measures. Noncitizens can also run for elected office in the D.C. government. HR 884 would repeal the act, removing voting powers from noncitizens. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton released a statement, pushing back at Congress' power of local D.C. matters. "Last Congress, Republicans introduced 14 bills or amendments to prohibit noncitizens from voting in D.C. or to repeal, nullify or prohibit the carrying out of D.C.'s law that permits noncitizens to vote," said Norton. "Yet, Republicans refuse to make the only election law change D.C. residents have asked Congress to make, which is the right to hold elections for voting members of the House and Senate." The Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act, would dismantle parts of D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022. HR 2096 would allow D.C. police officers to negotiate disciplinary matters through collective bargaining. It would also restore a statute of limitation for claims against the Metropolitan Police Department. "This bill was introduced three days after House Republicans passed a continuing resolution that cut D.C.'s local budget by one billion dollars. That act of fiscal sabotage, which did not save the federal government any money, has led to a freeze on overtime, hiring and pay raises, and furloughs or layoffs may be next," said Norton. "Nine weeks ago today, the Senate passed the D.C. Local Funds Act to reverse the cut. The D.C. Local Funds Act is just sitting in the House. Like President Trump and the National Fraternal Order of Police, I call on the House to pass immediately the D.C. Local Funds Act." READ MORE: Congress' spending bill error leaves DC scrambling to cut $400M from budget HR 2056 would strike down D.C. policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. It would prohibit DC officials from "sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with any Federal, State, or local government entity information regarding the citizenship or immigration status (lawful or unlawful) of any individual." The bill would effectively dismantle D.C.'s sanctuary city policies. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser made moves to quietly overturn a law that prevents local police from cooperating with ICE, including it in a provision of her 2026 budget proposal. Big picture view The D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973 allows the city to elect its own mayor and council. It's also allowed for D.C. to choose Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners to handle community concerns. Congress still maintains control over D.C., including the ability to review all local legislation and appoint the city's judges. D.C. has no voting member in Congress, though it has a nonvoting Delegate. In February, legislators from Utah and Tennessee introduced a bill to strip D.C. of its ability to govern itself. The bill is named after D.C.'s Mayor Muriel Bowser – the "Bringing Oversight to Washington and Safety to Every Resident (BOWSER) Act." The bill would eliminate D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973 and would place D.C. under the full control of Congress. The Source This story includes information from the US House of Representatives, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, and previous FOX 5 DC reporting.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store