Texas House Bill HJR5

Texas 2021 - 87th 2nd C.S.

Caption

Proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing the denial of bail to an accused person if a judge or magistrate determines by clear and convincing evidence that requiring bail and conditions of release is insufficient to reasonably ensure the person's appearance in court or the safety of the community or of any person, including the victim of the alleged offense.

Impact

If enacted, this amendment would significantly alter the current bail system in Texas by providing judges with greater discretion to deny bail based on factors surrounding the case rather than just the nature of the offense. It seeks to enhance public safety and ensures that those who pose a risk to the community can be kept in custody pending trial. The amendment would require a shift in how judges consider bail applications, necessitating a more thorough evaluation of the accused's risk.

Summary

HJR5 proposes a constitutional amendment to allow for the denial of bail to an accused individual if a judge or magistrate finds, based on clear and convincing evidence, that bail and conditions of release are inadequate to ensure that the individual will appear in court or to protect the safety of the community or specific individuals, including the alleged victim. This change to the Texas Constitution aims to address concerns over the effectiveness of bail in ensuring public safety and compliance with court appearances.

Election

HJR5's passage would lead to the amendment being submitted for voter approval in an election scheduled for November 2, 2021. This step emphasizes the bill’s impact on public policy, involving citizens directly in the decision-making process regarding changes to the judiciary and public safety laws.

Contention

The proposal has sparked a debate among legislators and the public regarding its potential implications. Supporters argue that it is a necessary step to ensure that individuals who represent a genuine threat to community safety are not released on bail. On the contrary, opponents of the measure raise concerns about the risks of undermining the presumption of innocence and the principles of a fair trial, suggesting that it could lead to the incarceration of individuals who may not pose a significant risk.