Voter registration info

---

This fall, Indiana voters will decide two public questions. Here’s what you need to know about Public Question 1, which would change Indiana’s constitutional rules about bail.

What does the Constitution currently say?

Under Article 1, Section 17, people charged with offenses other than murder or treason generally have a constitutional right to bail when sufficient sureties are provided.

What would change?

The proposed amendment would allow bail to be denied when both of these conditions are met:

1. The proof against the person is evident or the presumption of guilt is strong; and

2. The State proves by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release could reasonably protect other people or the community.

Why does this matter?

The amendment is largely intended to address concerns about people charged with violent offenses being released on bail and then committing additional crimes.

But changing the Constitution would give the General Assembly and the courts significantly more authority to determine when someone can be denied bail. That raises important questions about how broadly that power could ultimately be used and what safeguards would protect an individual's constitutional rights.

Our recommendation: VOTE NO

This fall, Indiana voters will decide two public questions. Here’s what you need to know about Public Question 2, which would change residency requirements for city and town court judges.

What does the Constitution currently say?
Indiana’s Constitution requires county, township, and town officers to live within the county, township, or town they serve.

What would change?
The proposed amendment would allow a city or town court judge to live either:

• In the county where the court is located, or 
• In the bordering county closest to the city or town where the court is located. 

Why does this matter?
The change could give smaller cities and towns more flexibility when recruiting judges, particularly when it may be difficult or impractical for a judge to live within the city or town itself…

…At the same time, it raises a broader question: Why would this residency exception apply to municipal judges but not other local officials?

Unlike Public Question 1, this amendment does not raise significant concerns for us about individual constitutional rights or public safety.

Our stance: NEUTRAL

When you vote this fall, you’ll also see judicial retention questions. These aren’t elections between candidates. Instead, voters decide whether sitting judges should remain in office.

Here’s who you’ll see on the ballot:

⚖️ Court of Appeals — 4th District: Judge Mary A. DeBoer, Presiding Judge

⚖️ Court of Appeals — 5th District: Judge Paul A. Felix, Presiding Judge

⚖️ Indiana Tax Court: Judge Justin McAdam

🔎 Want to do your own research?

The Indiana courts provide a neutral information resource with biographies, videos of oral arguments and links to judges’ opinions: https://www.in.gov/courts/retention 

Important: Judge Dana Kenworthy appears on the state’s retention website, but she is NOT on our local ballot.

You can also review opinions written by the judges:

• Click the “Opinions” link beneath a judge’s biography. 
• You’ll be taken to Indiana Appellate Decisions. 
• Under Court, select Court of Appeals or Tax Court. 
• Under Authoring Judge, select the judge you want to research. 
• Leave the other search fields unchanged. 
• Click Search

📚 Read the opinions. Watch the oral arguments. Review the judges’ backgrounds. Then make your own informed decision.

If you live in the Franklin Community Schools district, you'll see an operating referendum on your ballot. Here's what you need to know.

What is in place now?
Franklin voters approved an operating referendum in May 2019 with a maximum rate of $0.23 per $100 of assessed value, and it expires in 2027.

What would change?
The proposal would authorize a new eight-year operating referendum with a maximum rate of $0.29. It would run from 2027 through 2034, replacing the current referendum as it expires, and could raise no more than $9,000,000 a year. The funding supports:

• Retaining teachers and staff
• Student health and safety, including school police and nurses
• Manageable class sizes
• Academic programs and student opportunities

What will it cost?
The ballot states an impact of $329 per year for a median home of $250,000. That figure reflects the full new rate, not the difference from what homeowners already pay under the 2019 referendum. The Vote Yes committee projects a 2027 tax bill impact of about $49 once state property tax reductions are counted.

Why does this matter?
Indiana's recent property tax changes (SEA 1) phase in new deductions through 2031, shrinking the tax base, so the same rate brings in less money for schools. State law now allows school operating referendums only at general elections in even-numbered years, which makes this November the last chance to act before the current funding runs out. A no vote means that funding ends.

Our recommendation: VOTE YES

Learn more: https://www.supportfranklin.com

If you live in the Clark-Pleasant Community School Corporation district, you'll see an operating referendum renewal on your ballot. Here's what you need to know.

What is in place now?
Clark-Pleasant voters passed an operating referendum in 2018 at a rate of $0.10 per $100 of assessed value. It funds the district's own police department and student support services.

What would change?
Very little. This is a renewal at a lower rate. The question asks whether to continue the funding for up to eight years at a rate no higher than $0.09, capped at $4,400,000 a year. The funding supports:

• School safety, including the Clark-Pleasant Police Department
• Student support services such as behavioral health and nursing
• Student programming

What will it cost?
A yes vote does not add a new tax. The district is lowering the rate by one cent compared with 2018. The ballot notes that if the question fails, the tax bill on a median $300,000 home would go down by $127 a year, which is another way of saying that's roughly what the median homeowner pays now to keep these services.

Why does this matter?
The ballot wording says "continue to increase property taxes," which can read like a tax hike. It isn't one. It keeps school police officers, nurses, and behavioral health staff in Clark-Pleasant buildings at a slightly lower rate than voters approved eight years ago.

Our recommendation: VOTE YES

Learn more: https://www.cpcsc.k12.in.us/page/referendum