SJR 87 proposes a constitutional amendment that would mandate the denial of bail to individuals accused of certain serious felony offenses if they have previously been convicted of—or were out on bail for—those same categories of offenses at the time of the new alleged crime. The resolution targets repeat offenders of violent crimes such as murder, aggravated assault with a weapon, aggravated robbery, and various trafficking and sexual assault-related crimes. While the intent is to address legitimate public safety concerns regarding violent offenders who reoffend while on bail, the resolution raises substantial concerns in relation to key liberty principles, particularly Individual Liberty and Limited Government.
First and foremost, SJR 87 undermines the constitutional presumption of innocence by requiring pretrial detention based on prior convictions or pending charges, even before the accused is convicted of the new offense. While the proposed amendment includes procedural safeguards, such as a hearing with counsel and a probable cause standard, these are insufficient to counterbalance the automatic and inflexible nature of the bail denial. The mandatory denial removes judicial discretion to evaluate individual circumstances, including risk of flight, threat to public safety, or the specifics of the current charge. As such, it risks unjust pretrial incarceration, especially in cases where the facts or context do not justify denial of bail.
Additionally, from a Limited Government standpoint, SJR 87 increases the power of the state to deprive individuals of their liberty prior to trial based on categorical criteria. This sets a concerning precedent for constitutional amendments that expand state authority without narrowly tailoring that authority to specific, demonstrable threats. By removing discretion and placing blanket restrictions, the amendment shifts the balance of power away from judicial assessment and toward preemptive, one-size-fits-all detention policies.
From a practical standpoint, the fiscal and operational impacts on local governments are also significant. According to the Legislative Budget Board, while state-level costs are minimal, local jurisdictions could face increased jail populations and court workloads due to required hearings and longer periods of pretrial detention. These increased burdens, without guaranteed improvements in public safety outcomes, pose potential inefficiencies and inequities in local criminal justice systems.
To move toward alignment with liberty principles, the legislation should be amended to allow greater judicial discretion, incorporate individualized risk assessments, and set a higher evidentiary threshold than probable cause. Narrowing the scope of eligible offenses and allowing courts to consider mitigating factors would help ensure that the denial of bail is truly justified on a case-by-case basis. As written, however, the resolution grants the state too much unchecked power and risks sweeping in individuals who may not pose a legitimate threat to public safety.
Accordingly, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SJR 87 unless amended to preserve judicial discretion and protect the rights of the accused; the resolution constitutes a significant overreach that conflicts with core liberty principles.
- Individual Liberty: The resolution mandates denial of bail to individuals accused of certain serious felony offenses if they have prior felony convictions or were on bail for similar offenses at the time of the new charge. While public safety is a legitimate concern, this pretrial deprivation of liberty runs counter to the foundational principle of presumption of innocence. By removing judicial discretion and mandating incarceration before a conviction, the measure compromises the due process rights of the accused. It assumes guilt based on prior record or pending charges rather than allowing a neutral judge to assess current risk factors, thereby disproportionately affecting individuals who may ultimately be acquitted.
- Personal Responsibility: The resolution expands the power of the state to deprive individuals of liberty without a conviction, which is a serious extension of state authority. Rather than permitting a case-by-case analysis of risk, the proposed amendment uses a broad categorical approach that diminishes the role of judicial oversight. Such mandates, embedded into the state constitution, make it difficult to recalibrate policy in response to unintended consequences or evolving public safety data. This undermines the principle of a government limited by clear and restrained constitutional boundaries.
- Free Enterprise: The principle of personal responsibility emphasizes that individuals must be accountable for their actions. The resolution appears to promote this by targeting repeat violent offenders and ensuring they face consequences, including pretrial detention. However, because it does so before a new conviction and without individualized review, it may misapply the concept of personal responsibility by penalizing individuals who have not yet been found guilty of the alleged new offense. The blunt policy tool here may overextend the intended application of this principle.
- Private Property Rights: There is no clear effect on private property rights from this resolution. The bill does not involve eminent domain, property seizure, or land use regulation. However, if pretrial detention leads to loss of employment, housing, or the inability to maintain contracts or family responsibilities due to unjust or prolonged detention, there may be downstream impacts that indirectly touch on property rights and economic liberty.
- Limited Government: The resolution may create indirect burdens on the local economies and judicial systems through increased jail populations and extended pretrial detention. Counties could face higher costs for incarceration, and individuals detained pretrial may lose jobs or economic opportunities, which harms both the individual and the community’s economic productivity. While this isn’t a direct restriction on market activity, the ripple effects could undermine the economic freedom of both individuals and small-scale employers who depend on a stable workforce.
