Amendment stripping right to bail for some felonies closer to Tennessee voters' ballots
A proposed constitutional amendment that would allow judges to deny bail for certain crimes passed the Tennessee Senate. (Photo: John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout)
A proposed amendment to Tennessee's constitution that would strip people charged with certain crimes of their right to bail is one step closer to landing on voters' next gubernatorial ballot.
The Tennessee Senate approved a resolution 23-6 to pose the matter to voters. The amendment still needs approval from two-thirds of the House to be placed on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot. The amendment would then require a majority vote from those participating in the gubernatorial election to become law.
The resolution, sponsored by Franklin Republican Sen. Jack Johnson, would remove a defendant's right to pretrial bail 'when the proof is evident or the presumption great' for 73 felony crimes.
Such crimes include second-degree murder, acts of terrorism, aggravated rape of a child, vehicular homicide, aggravated burglary, and the third felony offense of manufacture, sale or delivery of a controlled substance, among others for which those convicted must serve at least 85% of their sentence in Tennessee.
Those who voted against the resolution warned that should the amendment ultimately be approved by voters, it will be costly in terms of both individual liberty and funding for incarceration.
Senate Judiciary Chair Todd Gardenhire comes down hard on constitutional bail bill
Tennessee's constitution currently enshrines the right to bail for all prisoners except for capital offenses (functionally, first degree murder, according to Johnson). But judges do have authority to set prohibitively high bail for serious crimes.
'Currently dangerous criminals with financial resources can buy their way out of jail, while indigent defendants accused of lesser crimes remain detained simply because they cannot afford bail,' Johnson said Monday.
The proposed amendment 'does not eliminate bail,' Johnson said, but gives judges discretion to hold defendants pretrial for 'heinous crimes.'
Language requiring evident proof of guilt and great presumption protects against misuse of judicial discretion, Johnson said, pointing to other states with preventative detention laws as examples.
Sen. Jeff Yarbro, a Nashville Democrat, disagreed. Other states' changes to pretrial detention were not so broad, he said, and pretrial detention without bail under federal law is part of a lengthier, more complicated pretrial process than what Tennessee currently has in place.
'(The proposed amendment) doesn't say that bail may be denied, it says there's no right to bail in those circumstances,' Yarbro said.
Johnson City Republican Sen. Rusty Crowe and Tullahoma Republican Sen. Janice Bowling flipped their votes Monday, allowing the resolution to narrowly exceed the 22-vote threshold it needed to pass. They said they concluded voters should have the opportunity to decide.
Sen. Todd Gardenhire, a Chattanooga Republican, said he did not object to the premise of the proposal, but the cost of implementation was never fully addressed. This concern was echoed by members of the Senate's Democratic caucus.
Memphis Democratic Sen. London Lamar said the cost of high incarceration is already straining government resources, and increased property taxes would likely result if voters approve the amendment.
'The ability to access bail is one of the fundamental rights that we give citizens in this state, because of the understanding you are innocent until proven guilty,' she said.
Lamar added that the ballot would not list all 73 of the crimes for which a person could be held without bail under this amendment. Giving judges discretion, she said, would also result in inequity based on where a defendant lives. A judge in one district may decide to take bail off the table for certain crimes, but a judge in another district may continue to set pretrial release on bail.
'It's a disservice to the voters who will be voting on this piece of legislation because it's not telling them the accurate cost and the consequences,' Lamar said.
Nashville Democratic Sen. Heidi Campbell voiced concern about the potential change paired with the 'ambiguous nature' of the state's definition of terrorism: 'the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce government.'
Yarbro said that the language addressing bail in Tennessee's constitution is drawn from the example of North Carolina and Pennsylvania, home to people who were held by the British government due to their religious beliefs.
'It was fundamental to what they thought government could and couldn't do to say that the say-so of … a judge and a prosecutor isn't enough for someone to give up their liberty,' he said.
In response to his colleagues' concerns, Johnson contended that the proposed amendment isn't anticipated to result in many more people being denied bail and incarcerated pretrial.
But even if it did cause incarceration to spike and costs to rise with it, 'our number one job up here is public safety,' he said.
The proposed amendment has seen support from the Tennessee Sheriff's Association and the Tennessee District Attorney Generals Conference.
Tenth District Attorney General Stephen Crump — also the conference's executive director — told the Senate Judiciary Committee in February that 'Tennessee's district attorneys believe this is the singular most important bill to public safety' in the last 11 years.
Johnson said if the state ends up needing to appropriate more money to 'empower our partners in law enforcement, the district attorneys and our judicial system, with the tools they need,' so be it.
'We're not going to amend our constitution today,' he said. 'We're going to let our constituents, the people of Tennessee, decide if they want our judges to be empowered to see these most violent people off the streets when they're convicted — or rather, when they're charged — with a crime, pretrial.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

28 minutes ago
US governors are divided along party lines about military troops deployed to protests
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is calling President Donald Trump's military intervention at protests over federal immigration policy in Los Angeles an assault on democracy and has sued to try to stop it. Meanwhile, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is putting the National Guard on standby in areas in his state where demonstrations are planned. The divergent approaches illustrate the ways the two parties are trying to navigate national politics and the role of executive power in enforcing immigration policies. In his live TV address this week, Newsom said that Trump's move escalated the situation — and for political gain. All 22 other Democratic governors signed a statement sent by the Democratic Governors Association on Sunday backing Newsom, calling the Guard deployment and threats to send in Marines 'an alarming abuse of power' that "undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.' The protests in Los Angeles have mostly been contained to five blocks in a small section of downtown; nearly 200 people were detained on Tuesday and at least seven police officers have been injured. In Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they're planning to deploy military troops for protests. Since Trump's return to office, Democratic governors have been calculating about when to criticize him, when to emphasize common ground and when to bite their tongues. The governors' responses are guided partly by a series of political considerations, said Kristoffer Shields, director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor at Rutgers University: How would criticizing Trump play with Democrats, Republicans and independent voters in their states? And for those with presidential ambitions, how does that message resonate nationally? Democratic governors are weighing a number of considerations. 'There probably is some concern about retributions — what the reaction of the administration could be for a governor who takes a strong stance," Shields said. And in this case, polling indicates about half of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling immigration, though that polling was conducted before the recent military deployment. On other issues, Democratic governors have taken a variety of approaches with Trump. At a White House meeting in February, Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills told Trump, ' we'll see you in court ' over his push to cut off funding to the state because it allowed transgender athletes in girls' school sports. Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, publicly sparred with Trump during his first term but this time around, has met with him privately to find common ground. Initially, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green referred to Trump as a 'straight-up dictator," but the next month he told a local outlet that he was treading carefully, saying: 'I'm not going to criticize him directly much at all." Apart from their joint statement, some of the highest-profile Democratic governors have not talked publicly about the situation in California. When asked, on Wednesday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul's office pointed to a Sunday social media post about the joint statement. Whitmer didn't respond. The office of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who is set to testify before Congress on Thursday about his state laws protecting people who are in the country without legal status, reiterated in a statement that he stands with Newsom. The office said 'local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation.' Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in an interview Wednesday in The Washington Post, said Trump should not send troops to a weekend protest scheduled in Philadelphia. 'He's injected chaos into the world order, he's injected it into our economy, he is trying to inject chaos into our streets by doing what he did with the Guard in California," Shapiro said. As state attorney general during Trump's first term, Shapiro routinely boasted that he sued Trump over 40 times and won each time. As governor he has often treaded more carefully, by bashing Trump's tariffs, but not necessarily targeting Trump himself. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has often clashed with Newsom, a fellow term-limited governor with national ambitions. Newsom's office said DeSantis offered to send Florida State Guard troops to California. 'Given the guard were not needed in the first place, we declined Governor DeSantis attempt to inflame an already chaotic situation made worse by his Party's leader,' Newsom spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo said in an email to The Associated Press. Speaking on Fox News on Tuesday, DeSantis said the gesture was a typical offer of mutual aid during a crisis — and was dismissive of the reasons it was turned down. 'The way to put the fire out is to make sure you have law and order,' he said. Protests against immigration enforcement raids have sprung up in other cities — and a series of 'No Kings' demonstrations are planned for the weekend — with governors preparing to respond. In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said he has spoken with his public safety commissioner to make sure state and local police work together. 'I don't want to give the president any pretext to think he can come into Connecticut and militarize the situation. That just makes the situation worse,' said Lamont, who called Trump "a little eager to send federal troops and militarize the situation in Los Angeles.' It is unclear how many Texas National Guard members will be deployed or how many cities asked for assistance. In Austin, where police used chemical irritants to disperse several hundred protesters on Monday, the mayor's office said the National Guard was not requested. San Antonio officials also said they didn't request the Guard. Florida's DeSantis said law enforcement in his state is preparing 'The minute you cross into attacking law enforcement, any type of rioting, any type of vandalism, looting, just be prepared to have the law come down on you,' DeSantis said Tuesday. 'And we will make an example of you, you can guarantee it.' ___ Associated Press reporters Nadia Lathan and Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas; Sophie Austin in Sacramento, California; Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Michigan; Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock, Arkansas; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut; Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, New York; Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida; and Sophia Tareen in Chicago; contributed.

35 minutes ago
Trump's military parade is a US outlier in peacetime but parades and reviews have a long history
Troops marching in lockstep. Patriotic tunes filling the air. The commander in chief looking on at it all. The military parade commemorating the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary and coinciding with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday will be a new spectacle for many Americans. This will not be the first U.S. military parade. However, it is unusual outside of wartime, and Trump's approach stands out compared to his predecessors. The Army had long planned a celebration for its semi-quincentennial on June 14. Trump has wanted to preside over a grand military parade since his first presidency from 2017 to 2021. When he took office a second time, he found the ideal convergence and ratcheted the Pentagon's plans into a full-scale military parade on his birthday. The president, who is expected to speak in Washington as part of the affair, pitches the occasion as a way to celebrate U.S. power and service members' sacrifice. But there are bipartisan concerns about the cost as well as concerns about whether Trump is blurring traditional understandings of what it means to be a civilian commander in chief. Ceremonial reviews — troops looking their best and conducting drills for top commanders — trace back through medieval kingdoms to ancient empires of Rome, Persia and China. The pageantry continued in the young U.S. republic: Early presidents held military reviews as part of July 4th independence celebrations. That ended with James K. Polk, who was president from 1845 to 1849. President Andrew Johnson resurrected the tradition in 1865, holding a two-day 'Grand Review of the Armies' five weeks after Abraham Lincoln's assassination. It came after Johnson declared the Civil War over, a show of force meant to salve a war-weary nation — though more fighting and casualties would occur. Infantry, cavalry and artillery units — 145,000 soldiers, and even cattle — traversed Pennsylvania Avenue. Johnson, his Cabinet and top Army officers, including Ulysses S. Grant, Lincoln's last commanding general and the future 18th president, watched from a White House viewing stand. The Spanish-American War was the first major international conflict for a reunited nation since the Civil War. It ended in a U.S. victory that established an American empire: Spain ceded Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and the U.S. purchased the Philippines for $20 million. Puerto Rico and Guam remain U.S. territories. New York City hosted multiple celebrations of a new global power. In August 1898, a fleet of warships, including the Brooklyn, the Texas, and the Oregon, sailed up the North River, more commonly known today as the Hudson River. American inventor Thomas Edison filmed the floating parade. The following September, New York hosted a naval and street parade to welcome home Rear Adm. George Dewey, who joined President William McKinley in a viewing stand. Many U.S. cities held World War I victory parades a few decades later. But neither Washington nor President Woodrow Wilson were the focal point. In Boston, a million civilians celebrated 20,000 troops in 1919. New York honored 25,000 troops marching in full uniform and combat gear. On June 13, 1942, as U.S. involvement in World War II accelerated, about 30,000 people formed a mobilization parade in New York City. Participants included Army and Navy personnel, American Women's Voluntary Services members, Boy Scouts and military school cadets. Scores of floats rolled, too. One carried a massive bust of President Franklin Roosevelt, who did not attend. Less than four years later, the 82nd Airborne Division and Sherman tanks led a victory parade down Manhattan's Fifth Avenue. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander during World War II, rode in a victory parade in Washington, D.C. In 1952, Eisenhower would join Grant and George Washington as top wartime commanders elevated to the presidency following their military achievements. Other World War II generals were honored in other homecoming parades. The U.S. did not hold national or major city parades after wars in Korea and Vietnam. Both ended without clear victory; Vietnam, especially, sparked bitter societal division, enough so that President Gerald Ford opted against a strong military presence in 1976 bicentennial celebrations, held a year after the fall of Saigon. Washington finally hosted a victory parade in 1991 after the first Persian Gulf War. The Constitution Avenue lineup included 8,000 troops, tanks, Patriot missiles and representatives of the international coalition, led by the U.S., that quickly drove an invading Iraq out of Kuwait. The commander in chief, George H.W. Bush, is the last U.S. president to have held an active-duty military post. He had been a World War II combat pilot who survived his plane being shot down over the Pacific Ocean. Veterans of the second Iraq and Afghanistan wars that followed the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks have not been honored in national parades. Inaugural parades include and sometimes feature military elements. Eisenhower's 1953 inaugural parade, at the outset of the Cold War, included 22,000 service members and an atomic cannon. Eight years later, President John F. Kennedy, a World War II Naval officer, watched armored tanks, Army and Navy personnel, dozens of missiles and Navy boats pass in front of his reviewing stand. More recent inaugurations have included honor guards, academy cadets, military bands and other personnel but not large combat assets. Notably, U.S. presidents, even when leading or attending military events, wear civilian attire rather than military garb, a standard set by Washington, who also eschewed being called 'General Washington' in favor of 'Mr. President.' Perhaps the lone exception came in 2003, when President George W. Bush, who had been a National Guard pilot, wore a flight suit when he landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, which U.S. forces had invaded six weeks earlier. The aircraft carrier was not a parade venue but the president emerged to raucous cheers from uniformed service members. He put on a business suit to deliver a nationally televised speech in front a 'Mission Accomplished' banner. As the war dragged on to a less decisive outcome, that scene and its enduring images would become a political liability for the president.


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Republicans clobber Democrats in Congressional Baseball Game for fifth straight year
Republican lawmakers crushed their Democratic counterparts Wednesday at the annual Congressional Baseball Game in Washington, DC. The GOP's 13-2 win over the Dems in Nationals Park marks the fifth straight year Republicans have defeated their political rivals on the diamond. Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.), who was seriously injured in a ladder fall two years ago, pitched five innings for the GOP, striking out seven Democrats. 9 The Democratic team stood on the field during the national anthem at the annual Congressional baseball game. Getty Images 9 Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA) pitched for his party on Wednesday. Getty Images 9 Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) sported his red uniform as he hit a ball during the event. Getty Images 'I am going to take an ice bath tomorrow,' Steube quipped after the game. The MVP award went to Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas), who made a spectacular diving catch to end the first inning after Democrats loaded the bases. Pfluger's close play went viral on social media. 'Proud to have been selected MVP for this year's Congressional Baseball Game!' the Texas Republican wrote on X. 'Couldn't have asked for a better support team here in DC! Another huge win for Republicans.' The game was far more subdued than last year's edition, which saw anti-Israel protesters disrupt the national anthem and climate change activists rush the field. 9 U.S. House Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) fist bumps Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX). Getty Images 9 Scalise holds the trophy after the Republicans win the annual Congressional baseball game at Nationals Park. Getty Images 9 U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) reacts during the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C. on June 11, 2025. REUTERS Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) greeted her colleagues in the Democratic dugout at one point during the game and received cheers from the blue team's fans. More than 30,000 tickets were sold for the game, which raised $2.8 million for dozens of charities. 'Team GOP takes the WIN!! 🏆🇺🇸 Proud to take the field with my Republican colleagues tonight and bring home the win,' House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) wrote on X. 'We raised $2.8 million for local charities. We're not tired of winning!' 9 U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson was spotted in the crowd during the game. REUTERS 9 U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) celebrates after running to home plate. Getty Images 9 Both teams celebrate on the field after the Republicans defeated the Democrats. REUTERS In 2017, Scalise was shot by a left-wing extremist during a GOP team practice in Alexandria, Va., a day before that year's edition of the game. Republicans hold an overall edge over Democrats in the series by five games, with 47-42 record.