Our state constitution is purposefully set up to be very difficult to amend. Our state founders, and those who participated in the two subsequent conventions, knew that the supreme law of our state needed to be secured and protected from hasty or temporary changes.
This year, we have three amendments that have worked their way through the legislative branch, and now require the approval of us, the voters.
Each of these amendments has gone through the constitutionally required process of approval by two successive General Assemblies.
First, a proposed amendment must receive the approval of a majority of all members elected to each house of the General Assembly. The proposal is then referred to the next General Assembly. In the next General Assembly, it must receive approval from two-thirds of all members of each house. If approved, it is then submitted to Tennessee voters at the next gubernatorial election.
The last step requires the amendment to receive a majority of the votes cast on the amendment and must also receive more than one-half of the total number of votes cast for Governor in that election.
Let’s look at Amendment One.
Amendment one is Senate Joint Resolution 25, you can read it in full here.
This amendment will provide a list of offenses that will allow the judge overseeing violent crime cases to withhold bail.
Currently, our constitution states “That all prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offences, when the proof is evident, or the presumption great.” Article I, Section 15
Under the current Constitution, bail may be denied in capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption is great. First-degree murder and aggravated rape of a child are among offenses that can carry the death penalty and therefore fall within the capital-offense exception.
This amendment would expand the constitutional circumstances in which a court may deny bail before trial when the “proof is evident or the presumption great”.
The offenses are: “(1) A capital offense; (2) An act of terrorism; (3) Second degree murder; (4) Aggravated rape of a child; (5) Aggravated rape; (6) Grave torture; and (7) Any other offense for which, as of November 3, 2026, a defendant, if convicted, could not be released prior to the expiration of at least eighty-five percent of the entire sentence imposed.”
Point seven is not a fixed list written into the amendment. Instead, it uses an 85% release-eligibility threshold. In other words, it applies to offenses for which, as of November 3, 2026, a person convicted of the offense could not be released before serving at least 85% of the sentence imposed.
Here is the current list from the Tennessee District Attorneys General: https://www.tndagc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Sentencing-Matrix-1.pdf. It includes aggravated arson, vehicular homicide, and several controlled substance abuse offenses.
It’s important to note, this list of crimes with the 85% threshold will change based on the statutes made in future General Assembly’s.
The amendment also requires a judge or magistrate to place in the record the reasons for either granting or denying bail in a case involving one of the listed offenses.
Although an accused’s right to bail may be withheld, the amendment clearly states their right to “habeas corpus” will not be affected, as is stated in Article 1, Section 15 of our constitution.
Last year, SJR 25 passed by two-thirds in both the House and the Senate. On the April 21, 2025 final House vote to pass it, Rep. Monty Fritts was the sole member recorded as present and not voting.
During the House floor session, Speaker Sexton stated that our state’s “constitution is our limiting factor…our constitution says that we can only deny bail for capital offenses.”
He continued by stating, it “merely allows judges the discretion…to make that determination on whether or not they should deny bail to the most serious violent crimes in our state for that offender…”
On the one hand, we see regular news reports of men and women released on bail, only to commit another heinous crime. Do a quick internet search, and you’ll see countless examples here in Tennessee.
On the other hand, this amendment assumes that judges will uphold their oath to the constitution. Just this past August, we voted to either replace or retain several judges. The judges were all appointed by Governor Bill Lee. If our state elects a Governor at any time in our future, who does not protect the rights of the people and chooses to lead with an ideology counter to ours, the judges they appoint will follow suit. Remember, in the not so distant past, parents who spoke against LGBTQ-themed books in school libraries were labeled as domestic terrorists. Could a vindictive judge hold bail from parents who have been arrested for protecting their children by identifying them as terrorists, and now falling under this amendment’s guidelines?
In Tennessee, an “act of terrorism” is defined by TCA § 39-13-803,
- (A) Intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
- (B) Influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion;
- (C) Affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination, torture, kidnapping, or mass destruction;…
When you only consider an act of terrorism to be something heinous, like in the third point of the definition, then yes, the constitutional right to bail should be withheld. But if the Democratic Socialists continue growing in our state, could they use this amendment to withhold bail for “Christian nationalists” who are working to “influence policy”? Maybe it’s a stretch or maybe it’s the reality we’re now living in.
Approving this amendment places an important responsibility on us: holding our courts and elected officials accountable for faithfully applying the Constitution. Remember, the Constitution was written only for a moral people, that includes moral judges.
The question to consider before voting YES or NO on this amendment:
Does every crime listed, both in the verbiage on the amendment itself and in the matrix from the AG’s office deserve to have the constitutional right to bail withheld?
The Question of Amendment One, When to Withhold the Right to Bail?
Our state constitution is purposefully set up to be very difficult to amend. Our state founders, and those who participated in the two subsequent conventions, knew that the supreme law of our state needed to be secured and protected from hasty or temporary changes.
This year, we have three amendments that have worked their way through the legislative branch, and now require the approval of us, the voters.
Each of these amendments has gone through the constitutionally required process of approval by two successive General Assemblies.
First, a proposed amendment must receive the approval of a majority of all members elected to each house of the General Assembly. The proposal is then referred to the next General Assembly. In the next General Assembly, it must receive approval from two-thirds of all members of each house. If approved, it is then submitted to Tennessee voters at the next gubernatorial election.
The last step requires the amendment to receive a majority of the votes cast on the amendment and must also receive more than one-half of the total number of votes cast for Governor in that election.
Let’s look at Amendment One.
Amendment one is Senate Joint Resolution 25, you can read it in full here.
This amendment will provide a list of offenses that will allow the judge overseeing violent crime cases to withhold bail.
Currently, our constitution states “That all prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offences, when the proof is evident, or the presumption great.” Article I, Section 15
Under the current Constitution, bail may be denied in capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption is great. First-degree murder and aggravated rape of a child are among offenses that can carry the death penalty and therefore fall within the capital-offense exception.
This amendment would expand the constitutional circumstances in which a court may deny bail before trial when the “proof is evident or the presumption great”.
The offenses are: “(1) A capital offense; (2) An act of terrorism; (3) Second degree murder; (4) Aggravated rape of a child; (5) Aggravated rape; (6) Grave torture; and (7) Any other offense for which, as of November 3, 2026, a defendant, if convicted, could not be released prior to the expiration of at least eighty-five percent of the entire sentence imposed.”
Point seven is not a fixed list written into the amendment. Instead, it uses an 85% release-eligibility threshold. In other words, it applies to offenses for which, as of November 3, 2026, a person convicted of the offense could not be released before serving at least 85% of the sentence imposed.
Here is the current list from the Tennessee District Attorneys General: https://www.tndagc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Sentencing-Matrix-1.pdf. It includes aggravated arson, vehicular homicide, and several controlled substance abuse offenses.
It’s important to note, this list of crimes with the 85% threshold will change based on the statutes made in future General Assembly’s.
The amendment also requires a judge or magistrate to place in the record the reasons for either granting or denying bail in a case involving one of the listed offenses.
Although an accused’s right to bail may be withheld, the amendment clearly states their right to “habeas corpus” will not be affected, as is stated in Article 1, Section 15 of our constitution.
Last year, SJR 25 passed by two-thirds in both the House and the Senate. On the April 21, 2025 final House vote to pass it, Rep. Monty Fritts was the sole member recorded as present and not voting.
During the House floor session, Speaker Sexton stated that our state’s “constitution is our limiting factor…our constitution says that we can only deny bail for capital offenses.”
He continued by stating, it “merely allows judges the discretion…to make that determination on whether or not they should deny bail to the most serious violent crimes in our state for that offender…”
On the one hand, we see regular news reports of men and women released on bail, only to commit another heinous crime. Do a quick internet search, and you’ll see countless examples here in Tennessee.
On the other hand, this amendment assumes that judges will uphold their oath to the constitution. Just this past August, we voted to either replace or retain several judges. The judges were all appointed by Governor Bill Lee. If our state elects a Governor at any time in our future, who does not protect the rights of the people and chooses to lead with an ideology counter to ours, the judges they appoint will follow suit. Remember, in the not so distant past, parents who spoke against LGBTQ-themed books in school libraries were labeled as domestic terrorists. Could a vindictive judge hold bail from parents who have been arrested for protecting their children by identifying them as terrorists, and now falling under this amendment’s guidelines?
In Tennessee, an “act of terrorism” is defined by TCA § 39-13-803,
When you only consider an act of terrorism to be something heinous, like in the third point of the definition, then yes, the constitutional right to bail should be withheld. But if the Democratic Socialists continue growing in our state, could they use this amendment to withhold bail for “Christian nationalists” who are working to “influence policy”? Maybe it’s a stretch or maybe it’s the reality we’re now living in.
Approving this amendment places an important responsibility on us: holding our courts and elected officials accountable for faithfully applying the Constitution. Remember, the Constitution was written only for a moral people, that includes moral judges.
The question to consider before voting YES or NO on this amendment:
Does every crime listed, both in the verbiage on the amendment itself and in the matrix from the AG’s office deserve to have the constitutional right to bail withheld?
Like this article?
Anne Lowery
Anne Lowery