Tennessee Amendment 1 Should Not be a Partisan Issue

It is Simply a Question of Do Tennesseans Want More Government Overreach

Before we get into why Tennesseans should vote no on Amendment 1, we think that it is important to make one thing very clear…The Tennessee Constitution was created with one goal in mind…to protect Tennesseans from an overreaching government.  Anytime that same government asks the voters to alter the very document that limits the government’s power, every Tennessean should not only be reluctant, but more importantly, question why.

Tennessee voters will decide Amendment 1 (www.votenoon1tn.com) on November 3, 2026. It would change Article I, Section 15 of the state constitution, the section that has protected the right to bail since 1796.  The amendment expands the offenses for which a judge may deny bail entirely. One of the categories of offenses that is being added is described as “any other offense” for which a convicted person could not be released before serving at least 85 percent of the sentence. That is a pretty vague explanation.  What are those crimes and how many are there?  That is a question that supporters have yet to answer.

Conservative supporters frame this as a public-safety measure that will curtail crime.  Meanwhile, opponents, who occupy a much wider segment of the political spectrum, including conservatives, liberals and independents, view Amendment 1 as an aggressive expansion of government power as well as a costly unfunded mandate on counties. This non-partisan skepticism is extremely important to the Amendment 1 debate.

Those that support a “YES” vote on Amendment 1, want this to be a purely political issue.  Because Tennessee is a very red, conservative state, they just need to get conservative voters on board.  They anticipate that conservative voters will simply comply with party leadership and vote along party lines.  We however know that Tennesseans voters are smarter than that and can see past the obvious political games.  No single party should simply have your vote regardless of the issue.  Especially not in this case.  The stakes are too high and the outcome too important.

The reality is that Amendment 1 is not a simple left-versus-right issue. It is common sense American issue of individual liberty and constitutional rights. It comes down to the question of whether expanding pretrial detention is an appropriate and fiscally responsible way to protect the public, or whether it goes too far and hands the government too much authority to lock people up before they have been convicted of anything.  We believe the latter.

Tennessee has always been known for its conservative values of small government, constitutional rights and fiscal responsibility.  That is why it is such a great state to live in and raise a family.   But Amendment 1 is none of those things. 

Amendment 1 removes your constitutional right to bail. 

There is a reason why the bail provision in the Tennessee constitution has not been changed since its creation in 1796.  Because it is just that important.  Tennessee has always valued its right to bail and has trusted the criminal justice system to protect its citizens without limiting their rights. Amendment 1 violates that trust.  It gives the government more power and control over the people.  It would allow the state to detain you or a loved one for more than 70+ crimes.  That isn’t public safety, that is pure government control.

Amendment 1 will increase your property taxes.

In every state where the government has asked for more power to detain so called “dangerous” people, the jails have filled up.  More people held in jail without bail means higher jail populations. Many Tennessee county jails are already crowded.  The Tennessee Department of Correction has reported dozens of facilities at or above 90 percent capacity. Housing someone costs money. Food and medical care cost money.  Staffing, overtime, and facility maintenance cost money. Local analyses put the daily cost of a jail bed well over $100 in some counties. Holding a person for months before trial quickly runs into tens of thousands of dollars. Multiply that across a larger group of defendants charged under the expanded list of offenses, and the bill grows.  We believe that this Amendment is fiscally irresponsible for Tennessee.

These costs fall primarily on counties and local taxpayers, not the state. That is an unfunded mandate. When jail populations rise, pressure mounts on local budgets and, in many places, on property taxes. One conservative critique published in the Chattanooga Times Free Press put it plainly: the state changes the constitution, and counties pay the bill. There is no automatic statewide funding attached to the amendment to cover the extra beds, staff, or medical care. Voters who care about fiscal restraint should notice that “getting tough” in this form shifts the expense downward without providing the resources.

Common Sense Solutions Over Constitutional Changes

Supporters are right that communities are tired of hearing about violent acts committed by people who were out on bond. Those cases are real and painful. The question is whether permanently expanding the government’s power to detain the unconvicted is the smartest or most cost-effective response, especially when judges already have the tools to detain dangerous individuals.

Amendment 1 does not guarantee greater safety. It does guarantee more government, higher local incarceration costs and fewer constitutional rights. Those are concerns that are not simply conservative, liberal or independent.  They cut across party lines.  That is why the debate is not purely partisan, and why many Tennesseans who care about public safety and constitutional limits can still conclude that the better vote is no.  VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 1.