Proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing the denial of bail under some circumstances to a person accused of a violent or sexual offense or of continuous trafficking of persons and requiring a judge or magistrate to impose the least restrictive conditions of bail that may be necessary to ensure the person's appearance in court as required and the safety of the community, law enforcement, and the victim of the alleged offense.

89th Legislature (2025)

Authorizes denying bail in certain violent, sexual, or continuous human trafficking cases; when bail is allowed, it must be the least restrictive conditions to ensure court appeara

Referred to Criminal Jurisprudence

#courts--judges(i0140) #crimes--againstpersons--sexual(i0171) #criminalprocedure--bail&pretrialrelease(i0202) #humantrafficking(s0696) #magistrates(s1592) #resolutions--constitutionalamendments(i0661) #sexualoffenders(s0099)

Overview

HJR 115 is a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment that would modify pretrial bail rules for certain offenses. It authorizes the denial of bail in some circumstances for individuals accused of violent or sexual offenses or of continuous trafficking of persons. When bail is allowed, it would require judges or magistrates to impose the least restrictive conditions necessary to ensure the person’s appearance in court and the safety of the community, law enforcement, and the victim.

Key Provisions (as proposed)

Constitutional amendment format: HJR 115 is a joint resolution, meaning it would amend the state constitution if approved by voters.

Denial of bail: Authorizes denial of bail in “some circumstances” for defendants charged with:

Violent offenses
Sexual offenses
Continuous trafficking of persons (human trafficking)

Bail conditions: When bail is imposed, judges or magistrates must apply the least restrictive conditions necessary to achieve:

Appearance in court as required
Safety of the community
Safety of law enforcement
Safety of the victim of the alleged offense

Who/What is Affected

Defendants: Those charged with violent offenses, sexual offenses, or continuous trafficking of persons could face bail denial under certain circumstances.

Judges and magistrates: Would be responsible for applying the amended constitutional standard and ensuring “least restrictive” conditions.

Victims and communities: Potentially impacted through changes in pretrial detention and supervision.

Law enforcement and detention facilities: Possible effects on pretrial release populations and supervision requirements.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

Introduced: January 16, 2025

Status: Referred to Criminal Jurisprudence (committee action)

Actions to date:

2025-01-16: Filed
2025-03-14: Read first time
2025-03-14: Referred to Criminal Jurisprudence

Constitutional pathway: As a joint resolution, it would need to pass both legislative chambers and then be approved by voters in a statewide election to take effect.

Potential Impacts and Questions to Consider

How “some circumstances” are defined will determine the scope of bail denial and could affect flight risk and public safety.

What constitutes “least restrictive conditions” (examples may include electronic monitoring, supervision, travel restrictions, or no-contact orders) and how these would be implemented in practice.

Interaction with existing pretrial release procedures and any related statutory guidelines.

Implications for jail populations, court backlogs, and due process considerations, including appellate review of bail determinations.

Clarification of terms such as “continuous trafficking of persons” to ensure consistent application.

This summary captures the bill’s core intent, provisions, and potential implications based on the text and available actions to date.

Bill

Summary of Bill: HJR 115

Overview

Key Provisions (as proposed)

Who/What is Affected

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

Potential Impacts and Questions to Consider

Create your proposal