Michael J. Whitlock, Executive Vice President, Bail Division
Mike Whitlock and Peter Tuttle taking a break at the Home Office American Surety Company’s Bail Division
I got off to a late start in 2026, but it’s off to the races now. I’ve already traveled to Las Vegas, Dallas, Sacramento, Modesto, and Austin, with Houston on deck next week. Much of that time has been spent onboarding new agents to American Surety Company and preparing presentations for upcoming bail agent conferences in Indiana and Mississippi.
On the legislative front, I initially expected a relatively quiet year for bail reform. To some degree, that has proven true—but there are still several significant developments I’ve been following, and in some cases, directly participating in.
Here in the home state of the National Champion Indiana Hoosiers, the legislature passed SJR1, which will place a constitutional amendment on the November 2026 ballot. If approved, it would expand the offenses for which a defendant can be detained pretrial—from the current standard of murder and treason to virtually any offense, whether felony or misdemeanor. If Indiana voters approve this measure, it would alter constitutional language that has been in place since 1851. Tennessee voters will consider a similar, though more narrowly tailored, constitutional amendment this fall.
Out west, the Washington State Supreme Court is considering proposed amendments to CrR 3.2. The proposal would significantly expand the use of ten percent cash deposit bail—what I often refer to as the “90% discount”—and cap misdemeanor bail at $200. The Washington State Bail Agents Association has been working tirelessly to oppose the measure. It is, however, an uphill battle, as judges are evaluating a proposal that directly impacts the courts, and the process does not include public hearings or testimony.
California currently has three proposals impacting the bail profession. The premium refund bill carried over from the 2025 session remains dormant for now but is being closely monitored. AB 1927, endorsed by the California Bail Agents Association, targets telephone solicitation by both licensed and unlicensed bail agents. Additionally, SB 1026 was recently introduced and would expand oversight, licensing requirements, and operational restrictions on fugitive recovery agents, along with imposing significant new compliance standards.
In Ohio, HB 741—the “Holly Act”—is under consideration in Columbus. This bill would impose restrictions on charitable bail organizations, including prohibiting bonds over $5,000, limiting involvement in violent or domestic violence cases, and restricting repeat use for the same defendant. The bill also proposes a structured remission schedule: 100% remission if the defendant is returned within one year of forfeiture, and 80% if returned within three years.
Finally, the North Carolina Department of Insurance is evaluating whether to implement a statewide requirement for bail agents to post bonds through an electronic (e-bond) system. Similar systems are already in place in various jurisdictions, including Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas, but North Carolina is considering a comprehensive statewide rollout. Bail agents have voiced opposition, and a final decision has not yet been made.
So much for a quiet year.
There is a great deal to keep track of—some positive, some concerning—depending on your perspective. As I begin my 46th year in this profession, none of this comes as a surprise. What continues to motivate me is the opportunity to maintain relationships across the country, meet new people, and introduce them to what I believe is a truly exceptional company: American Surety Company.