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

Vance on LA unrest: Newsom should ‘look in mirror' and stop blaming Trump
Vance on LA unrest: Newsom should ‘look in mirror' and stop blaming Trump

The Hill

time24 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Vance on LA unrest: Newsom should ‘look in mirror' and stop blaming Trump

Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday tore into California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for suggesting the unrest in Los Angeles is a consequence of federal involvement in state and local law enforcement efforts. 'Gavin Newsom says he didn't have a problem until Trump got involved,' Vance wrote in a post on X, attaching two photos that he said were taken before Trump ordered the National Guard to protect border patrol agents in California. One depicted rioters appearing to attack a 'border patrol' van, and another depicted a car set ablaze. The Hill was not able to verify the authenticity of the photos. 'Does this look like 'no problem'?' Vance asked. Vance suggested Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass 'fomented and encouraged the riots,' with the goal of promoting mass migration into the U.S., adding, 'It is their reason for being.' 'If you want to know why illegal aliens flocked to your state, stop accusing Donald Trump. Look in the mirror,' Vance said. 'If you want to know why border patrol fear for their lives over enforcing the law, look in the mirror.' Vance pointed to California's Medicaid expansion last year to low-income undocumented immigrants as an example of a policy that has 'encouraged mass migration into California.' Newsom has since proposed ending new Medicaid enrollment for undocumented adults, but his proposal faces resistance from the state legislature. 'Your policies that protected those migrants from common sense law enforcement. Your policies that offered massive welfare benefits to reward illegal immigrants. Your policies that allowed those illegal migrants (and their sympathizers) to assault our law enforcement. Your policies that allowed Los Angeles to turn into a war zone,' Vance continued. 'You sure as hell had a problem before President Trump came along. The problem is YOU,' Vance added. Vance's post is the latest in a back-and-forth between the administration and Newsom, who has resisted Trump's extraordinary steps to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops to the area and mobilize 700 active-duty marines. Newsom has insisted that the situation was under control before the Trump administration escalated tensions by making a provocative show of force. He accused Trump of 'intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities and endangering the principles of our great democracy.' After Trump suggested his border czar arrest Newsom, the California governor responded by saying, 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America.' 'I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,' Newsom added Monday afternoon. Vance then replied to Newsom, saying, 'Do your job. That's all we're asking.' 'Do YOUR job. We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. Rescind the order. Return control to California,' Newsom responded, prompting Vance's latest response.

Black Caucus chair says Trump's actions on L.A. are impeachable
Black Caucus chair says Trump's actions on L.A. are impeachable

Axios

time27 minutes ago

  • Axios

Black Caucus chair says Trump's actions on L.A. are impeachable

Congressional Black Caucus chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday she believes President Trump mobilizing the National Guard and deploying Marines to Los Angeles rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Why it matters: It's a break with House Democrats' general aversion towards impeachment from the head of one of their most powerful groups. The comment comes amid growing animosity between Democrats and the Trump administration over the president's use of law enforcement to carry out a campaign of mass deportations. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Driving the news: During a press conference, Clarke was asked if Trump's actions to quell protests in L.A. rise to the level of an impeachable offense "I definitely believe it is," she responded, "But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it." Clarke and other Democrats have argued that Trump has violated the U.S. Constitution by mobilizing the National Guard over Newsom's objections. Reality check: Democrats are highly unlikely to pursue an organized impeachment effort against Trump any time soon. Two rank-and-file members, Reps. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) and Al Green (D-Texas), have spearheaded their own rogue impeachment initiatives, but most Democrats have dissociated themselves with those efforts. Most Democrats are clear-eyed that impeachment would be doomed to failure with Republicans in control of Congress — and they often note that Trump won in 2024 despite previously being impeached twice. What they're saying: House Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) told reporters at a subsequent press conference, "I've said before that ... House Democrats aren't focused on impeachment today."

Impeachment wars
Impeachment wars

Axios

time27 minutes ago

  • Axios

Impeachment wars

Rep. Jasmine Crockett's mere mention of a possible impeachment inquiry into President Trump has touched off negative reactions from some colleagues. "I think she's going to turn off a lot more people than gain," a House Democrat told us. Why it matters: House Democratic leaders are staying neutral. But many Democrats are allergic to the word after they impeached Trump twice only for him to return to power with full control of the government. Crockett (D-Texas), asked in a local news interview if she would pursue impeachment if Democrats retook the House in 2026 and she became Oversight Committee chair, said she would "absolutely at least do an inquiry." The other three candidates for the ranking member job on Oversight, Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) and Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), told us they wouldn't go that far. 👿 "Turning this ranker race into a proxy for impeachment is unhelpful and unfair to her colleagues," said a House Democrat who predicted Republicans will "try to motivate their base by saying that a Democratic majority will inevitably lead to impeachment." Crockett told us the term "impeachment inquiry" would stress to the public the "next level of gravity" of the subject matter — such as Trump's pardons for big money allies and the Qatari jet scandal. "A lot of times we as Democrats can overthink stuff," Crockett said. "A lot of people ... felt like [Oversight Committee chair] James Comer was an embarrassment. But at the end of the day, who won the House?" The bottom line: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries deferred to House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), whose panel, he said, "has jurisdiction over impeachment."

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