Texas Constitution talk:Article I, Section 11-d - Revision history

Admin at 21:26, October 26, 2025

2025-10-26T21:26:59Z

Admin at 15:24, October 22, 2025

2025-10-22T15:24:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:24, October 22, 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution–discussion page}}__NOTOC__This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page ''{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution''.		{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution–discussion page}}__NOTOC__This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page ''{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution''.

	==~~Amendments~~ 2025==		==2025==

	This section, proposed by [https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SJR5 SJR 5], will be voted on at the 2025 constitutional amendment election.		This section, proposed by [https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SJR5 SJR 5], will be voted on at the 2025 constitutional amendment election.
Line 114:		Line 114:
	incarceration for lower-risk defendants.		incarceration for lower-risk defendants.

	== TLC ==		==TLC==

	Comments by Supporters:		Comments by Supporters:

Admin: /* TLC */ new section

2025-10-22T15:15:50Z

TLC: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:15, October 22, 2025
Line 113:		Line 113:
	high-risk cases and reduce the risk of unnecessarily lengthy		high-risk cases and reduce the risk of unnecessarily lengthy
	incarceration for lower-risk defendants.		incarceration for lower-risk defendants.

			== TLC ==

			Comments by Supporters:

			• Establishing a procedure for judges to deny bail in cases
			involving felonies such as murder, aggravated sexual assault,
			and human trafficking would prevent high-risk offenders from
			committing additional crimes while awaiting trial. Pretrial
			releases on low bail or personal recognizance can allow
			dangerous individuals to remain in the community, as high-risk
			defendants who can afford bail may be released even if they
			pose a significant threat to public safety.

			• Since 2021, there have been at least 162 homicide cases filed in
			Harris County against defendants awaiting trial for a previous
			offense while free on bond at the time of the homicide.

			• Limiting application of the amendment to only the most
			serious offenses ensures that only the individuals who pose
			the greatest risk are denied bail.

			• Denial of bail is successfully utilized in similar circumstances in
			the federal court system and in many other states.

			• The proposed amendment provides a distinct threshold
			for denying bail by requiring the state to demonstrate by a
			preponderance of the evidence that granting bail is insufficient
			to reasonably prevent a person's wilful nonappearance in
			court or demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that
			granting bail is insufficient to reasonably ensure public safety.
			This places a clear burden on the prosecution and conforms
			with the burden of proof required for detaining a defendant
			without bail under the federal Bail Reform Act of 1984, which
			was found constitutional in United States v. Salerno.

			• Defendants would have the right to be represented by counsel
			at bail denial hearings, ensuring legal representation to
			safeguard the defendant's rights during this critical stage of
			the pretrial process.

			• A defendant would retain the right to appeal a judge's decision
			regarding bail.

			• Under the current system, pretrial release is effectively denied
			by means of bail being set so high that a defendant cannot
			possibly make it. The proposed amendment provides a more
			honest way of accomplishing this.

			Comments by Opponents:

			• The proposed amendment would lead to longer pretrial
			detentions for individuals who have yet to be convicted
			of a crime, increasing the financial and personal burdens
			of detention on these defendants and undermining the
			presumption of innocence.

			• The proposed amendment could be ineffective at addressing
			its stated goal of increasing public safety, as high pretrial
			incarceration rates have been shown to be associated
			with increased recidivism, difficulty reintegrating into the
			community, and poorer long-term outcomes for defendants.

			• The proposed amendment could exacerbate existing racial
			disparities in the state's criminal justice system.

			• Texas judges already have the discretion to effectively deny
			bail to potentially dangerous individuals by setting cash bonds
			at amounts that these defendants cannot pay.

			• Texas consistently ranks among the states with the highest
			pretrial detention rates, suggesting that the current system
			already provides for substantial pretrial detention.

			• Increasing reliance on pretrial detention could exacerbate
			overcrowding in county jails, which are often understaffed and
			struggling with limited resources, potentially leading to higher
			taxpayer costs without commensurate public safety benefits.

			• Failing to set a specific timeline by which a bail determination
			must be made could lead to delays in trial proceedings, causing
			alleged offenders to be held for longer without meaningful
			recourse and undermining defendants' right to a speedy trial.

			• A better approach would be to require judges to consider the
			"least restrictive conditions" that would reasonably ensure
			public safety and the defendant's appearance in court. This
			approach would ensure that pretrial detention is reserved
			for truly high-risk cases and reduce the risk of unnecessarily
			lengthy incarceration for lower-risk defendants.

			• The proposed amendment requires a judge to consider the
			criminal history of a defendant when making a decision to
			deny bail, which means that offenses committed long ago
			could be used against the defendant, even those that were
			nonviolent in nature.

Admin at 14:57, October 22, 2025

2025-10-22T14:57:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:57, October 22, 2025
Line 5:		Line 5:
	This section, proposed by [https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SJR5 SJR 5], will be voted on at the 2025 constitutional amendment election.		This section, proposed by [https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SJR5 SJR 5], will be voted on at the 2025 constitutional amendment election.

	==~~Texas~~ Tribune ==		==Tribune ==

	This proposition would require judges to deny bail in certain cases for individuals accused of committing specific felonies, such as murder, aggravated assault and indecency with a child. The state would have to demonstrate that bail is not enough to prevent the defendant from being a flight or public safety risk. Defendants, who are legally presumed innocent, would also be entitled to the right to an attorney during their bail hearings.		This proposition would require judges to deny bail in certain cases for individuals accused of committing specific felonies, such as murder, aggravated assault and indecency with a child. The state would have to demonstrate that bail is not enough to prevent the defendant from being a flight or public safety risk. Defendants, who are legally presumed innocent, would also be entitled to the right to an attorney during their bail hearings.

Admin at 14:56, October 22, 2025

2025-10-22T14:56:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:56, October 22, 2025
Line 84:		Line 84:
	trial proceedings, causing alleged offenders to be held for		trial proceedings, causing alleged offenders to be held for
	longer without meaningful recourse and undermining		longer without meaningful recourse and undermining
	defendants’ right to a speedy trial.		defendants’ right to a speedy trial.

	Texas judges already have the discretion to deny		Texas judges already have the discretion to deny
	bail to potentially dangerous individuals by setting		bail to potentially dangerous individuals by setting
Line 100:		Line 101:
	benefits.		benefits.

	Other critics say		Other critics say:

	Proposition 3 should include a requirement for		Proposition 3 should include a requirement for
	judges to consider the “least restrictive conditions” that		judges to consider the “least restrictive conditions” that

Admin at 14:55, October 22, 2025

2025-10-22T14:55:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:55, October 22, 2025
Line 7:		Line 7:
	==Texas Tribune ==		==Texas Tribune ==

	"This proposition would require judges to deny bail in certain cases for individuals accused of committing specific felonies, such as murder, aggravated assault and indecency with a child. The state would have to demonstrate that bail is not enough to prevent the defendant from being a flight or public safety risk. Defendants, who are legally presumed innocent, would also be entitled to the right to an attorney during their bail hearings.		This proposition would require judges to deny bail in certain cases for individuals accused of committing specific felonies, such as murder, aggravated assault and indecency with a child. The state would have to demonstrate that bail is not enough to prevent the defendant from being a flight or public safety risk. Defendants, who are legally presumed innocent, would also be entitled to the right to an attorney during their bail hearings.

	The proposal is part of a broad legislative package that Texas Republican leaders have said is needed to reduce violent crimes committed by people out on bond and to curb the ability of “activist judges” to set “weak bail.” Civil rights groups said keeping more people behind bars would add to overcrowded jails without actually improving public safety, while also pointing to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says “liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.”		The proposal is part of a broad legislative package that Texas Republican leaders have said is needed to reduce violent crimes committed by people out on bond and to curb the ability of “activist judges” to set “weak bail.” Civil rights groups said keeping more people behind bars would add to overcrowded jails without actually improving public safety, while also pointing to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says “liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.”

	Under the Texas Constitution, most defendants have the right to be released on bail except for certain cases, such as those charged with capital murder or accused of certain repeat felonies."		Under the Texas Constitution, most defendants have the right to be released on bail except for certain cases, such as those charged with capital murder or accused of certain repeat felonies.

	==HRO==		==HRO==

Admin at 14:55, October 22, 2025

2025-10-22T14:55:00Z

Admin: /* HRO */ new section

2025-10-22T14:52:13Z

HRO: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:52, October 22, 2025
Line 12:		Line 12:

	Under the Texas Constitution, most defendants have the right to be released on bail except for certain cases, such as those charged with capital murder or accused of certain repeat felonies."		Under the Texas Constitution, most defendants have the right to be released on bail except for certain cases, such as those charged with capital murder or accused of certain repeat felonies."

			== HRO ==

			Supporters say
			By requiring judges to deny bail for certain cases
			involving felonies such as murder, aggravated sexual
			assault, and human trafficking, Proposition 3 would
			prevent high-risk offenders from committing additional
			crimes while awaiting trial. Pretrial releases on low bail or
			personal recognizance can allow dangerous individuals to
			remain in the community, as high-risk defendants who can
			afford bail may be released, even if they pose a significant
			threat to public safety. By limiting this authority to only
			the most serious offenses, the constitutional amendment
			would ensure that only those individuals who posed the
			greatest risk were denied bail.
			The proposed constitutional amendment also
			would provide a distinct threshold for denying bail by
			establishing two evidentiary standards: a preponderance of
			the evidence for nonappearance and clear and convincing
			evidence for public safety. The evidentiary structure is
			compatible with the federal Bail Reform Act of 1984 and
			consistent with existing constitutional precedent, which
			could help protect the amendment from legal challenges.
			Additionally, this determination could only be made after
			a judge found probable cause that the defendant had
			committed the underlying offense. This discretionary
			approach would apply multiple evidentiary standards
			that the state must meet before a judge could deny bail,
			balancing public safety concerns with the constitutional
			rights of the accused. Proposition 3 would give judges the
			tools to make informed decisions about pretrial detention,
			ensuring that detention was based on specific findings and
			grounded in the required evidentiary standards.
			Proposition 3 also would include several procedural
			safeguards to protect defendants’ rights. Defendants
			would have the right to be represented by counsel at bail
			denial hearings, ensuring legal representation during this
			critical stage of the pretrial process. Additionally, if a
			judge determined that probable cause existed for one of
			the charged offenses and that the applicable evidentiary
			standard was met, the defendant would retain the right
			to appeal the decision. Current law also requires that
			prosecutors meet certain indictment timelines under the
			Code of Criminal Procedure to protect a defendant’s right
			to a speedy trial. If these deadlines were not met, a judge
			would have to lower a defendant’s bond amount.
			Proposition 3 could lead to longer pretrial detentions
			for individuals who had not been convicted of a
			crime, increasing financial and personal burdens and
			undermining the presumption of innocence. The proposed
			constitutional amendment also could be ineffective at
			addressing its stated goal of increasing public safety,
			as high pretrial incarceration rates have been shown
			to be associated with increased recidivism, difficulty
			reintegrating into the community, and poorer long
			term outcomes for defendants. The proposition could
			exacerbate racial disparities in the state’s criminal justice
			system, as people of color are already overrepresented in
			Texas jails.
			Creating evidentiary standards for denying bail
			without establishing a specific timeline by which this
			determination must be made also could lead to delays in
			trial proceedings, causing alleged offenders to be held for
			longer without meaningful recourse and undermining
			defendants’ right to a speedy trial.
			Texas judges already have the discretion to deny
			bail to potentially dangerous individuals by setting
			cash bonds at amounts that effectively prevent release.
			Additionally, Texas consistently ranks among the states
			with the highest pretrial detention rates even as violent
			crime rates have decreased, suggesting that the current
			system already provides for substantial pretrial detention.
			Increasing reliance on pretrial detention could exacerbate
			overcrowding in county jails, which are often understaffed
			and struggling with limited resources. This strain on
			resources could ultimately limit the effectiveness of the
			criminal justice system, potentially leading to higher
			taxpayer costs without commensurate public safety
			benefits.
			Other critics say
			Proposition 3 should include a requirement for
			judges to consider the “least restrictive conditions” that
			would reasonably ensure public safety and the defendant’s
			appearance in court, rather than requiring judges to
			impose conditions that are “necessary only” to reasonably
			prevent the person’s wilful nonappearance or ensure public
			safety. This approach would create procedural safeguards
			to ensure that pretrial detention was reserved for truly
			high-risk cases and reduce the risk of unnecessarily lengthy
			incarceration for lower-risk defendants.

47.221.209.71 at 14:45, October 22, 2025

2025-10-22T14:45:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:45, October 22, 2025
Line 5:		Line 5:
	This section, proposed by [https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SJR5 SJR 5], will be voted on at the 2025 constitutional amendment election.		This section, proposed by [https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SJR5 SJR 5], will be voted on at the 2025 constitutional amendment election.

	== ~~tribune~~ ==		==Texas Tribune ==

	This proposition would require judges to deny bail in certain cases for individuals accused of committing specific felonies, such as murder, aggravated assault and indecency with a child. The state would have to demonstrate that bail is not enough to prevent the defendant from being a flight or public safety risk. Defendants, who are legally presumed innocent, would also be entitled to the right to an attorney during their bail hearings.		"This proposition would require judges to deny bail in certain cases for individuals accused of committing specific felonies, such as murder, aggravated assault and indecency with a child. The state would have to demonstrate that bail is not enough to prevent the defendant from being a flight or public safety risk. Defendants, who are legally presumed innocent, would also be entitled to the right to an attorney during their bail hearings.

	The proposal is part of a broad legislative package that Texas Republican leaders have said is needed to reduce violent crimes committed by people out on bond and to curb the ability of “activist judges” to set “weak bail.” Civil rights groups said keeping more people behind bars would add to overcrowded jails without actually improving public safety, while also pointing to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says “liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.”		The proposal is part of a broad legislative package that Texas Republican leaders have said is needed to reduce violent crimes committed by people out on bond and to curb the ability of “activist judges” to set “weak bail.” Civil rights groups said keeping more people behind bars would add to overcrowded jails without actually improving public safety, while also pointing to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says “liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.”

	Under the Texas Constitution, most defendants have the right to be released on bail except for certain cases, such as those charged with capital murder or accused of certain repeat felonies.		Under the Texas Constitution, most defendants have the right to be released on bail except for certain cases, such as those charged with capital murder or accused of certain repeat felonies."

47.221.209.71: /* tribune */ new section

2025-10-22T14:26:57Z

tribune: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:26, October 22, 2025
Line 4:		Line 4:

	This section, proposed by [https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SJR5 SJR 5], will be voted on at the 2025 constitutional amendment election.		This section, proposed by [https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SJR5 SJR 5], will be voted on at the 2025 constitutional amendment election.

			== tribune ==

			This proposition would require judges to deny bail in certain cases for individuals accused of committing specific felonies, such as murder, aggravated assault and indecency with a child. The state would have to demonstrate that bail is not enough to prevent the defendant from being a flight or public safety risk. Defendants, who are legally presumed innocent, would also be entitled to the right to an attorney during their bail hearings.

			The proposal is part of a broad legislative package that Texas Republican leaders have said is needed to reduce violent crimes committed by people out on bond and to curb the ability of “activist judges” to set “weak bail.” Civil rights groups said keeping more people behind bars would add to overcrowded jails without actually improving public safety, while also pointing to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says “liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.”

			Under the Texas Constitution, most defendants have the right to be released on bail except for certain cases, such as those charged with capital murder or accused of certain repeat felonies.

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:55, October 22, 2025
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Under the Texas Constitution, most defendants have the right to be released on bail except for certain cases, such as those charged with capital murder or accused of certain repeat felonies."		Under the Texas Constitution, most defendants have the right to be released on bail except for certain cases, such as those charged with capital murder or accused of certain repeat felonies."

	== HRO ==		==HRO==

			Supporters say:

	~~Supporters say~~
	By requiring judges to deny bail for certain cases		By requiring judges to deny bail for certain cases
	involving felonies such as murder, aggravated sexual		involving felonies such as murder, aggravated sexual
Line 28:		Line 29:
	would ensure that only those individuals who posed the		would ensure that only those individuals who posed the
	greatest risk were denied bail.		greatest risk were denied bail.

	The proposed constitutional amendment also		The proposed constitutional amendment also
	would provide a distinct threshold for denying bail by		would provide a distinct threshold for denying bail by
Line 46:		Line 48:
	ensuring that detention was based on specific findings and		ensuring that detention was based on specific findings and
	grounded in the required evidentiary standards.		grounded in the required evidentiary standards.

	Proposition 3 also would include several procedural		Proposition 3 also would include several procedural
	safeguards to protect defendants’ rights. Defendants		safeguards to protect defendants’ rights. Defendants
Line 58:		Line 61:
	Code of Criminal Procedure to protect a defendant’s right		Code of Criminal Procedure to protect a defendant’s right
	to a speedy trial. If these deadlines were not met, a judge		to a speedy trial. If these deadlines were not met, a judge
	would have to lower a defendant’s bond amount.		would have to lower a defendant’s bond amount.

			Critics say:

	Proposition 3 could lead to longer pretrial detentions		Proposition 3 could lead to longer pretrial detentions
	for individuals who had not been convicted of a		for individuals who had not been convicted of a
Line 71:		Line 77:
	exacerbate racial disparities in the state’s criminal justice		exacerbate racial disparities in the state’s criminal justice
	system, as people of color are already overrepresented in		system, as people of color are already overrepresented in
	Texas jails.		Texas jails.

	Creating evidentiary standards for denying bail		Creating evidentiary standards for denying bail
	without establishing a specific timeline by which this		without establishing a specific timeline by which this
Line 92:		Line 99:
	taxpayer costs without commensurate public safety		taxpayer costs without commensurate public safety
	benefits.		benefits.

	Other critics say		Other critics say
	Proposition 3 should include a requirement for		Proposition 3 should include a requirement for