# Proposition 5: Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers *measure · California statewide proposition* — November 3, 2026 General Election (2026-11-03), Los Angeles County, California Research pack generated 2026-10-30T23:52:30+00:00 by ballotscope. Summaries are LLM-generated from the linked originals and may contain errors; check the originals before relying on anything. Sources span 2023-01-30 to 2026-10-13. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 19 sources) Proposition 5 ends the second, replacement question on recall ballots for state officers, including legislators. If a recall passes, the office becomes vacant and is filled under existing vacancy law; the recalled official cannot be appointed but may run in any special election [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 5 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 19); Proposition 5: Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers (LAO analysis); Proposition 5 Official Title and Summary and Analysis by the Legislative Analyst]. For Governor, the Lieutenant Governor takes over; if the recall comes in the first two years of the term, before the next statewide nomination period closes, voters choose a new Governor at the next statewide primary, with a top-two runoff if no one wins a majority [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 5 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 19); Proposition 5 Text of Proposed Laws; Proposition 5 Official Title and Summary and Analysis by the Legislative Analyst]. Legislative seats would typically go to special elections and other offices to gubernatorial appointment [Proposition 5: Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers (LAO analysis); Proposition 5 Official Title and Summary and Analysis by the Legislative Analyst]. The LAO calls the net fiscal effect unknown: possibly millions of dollars in savings or costs per recall [Proposition 5: Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers (LAO analysis); Proposition 5 Official Title and Summary and Analysis by the Legislative Analyst]. Supporters, led by the League of Women Voters and California Common Cause, say the current format lets a replacement win with a small plurality [Proposition 5 Arguments and Rebuttals]; opponents, led by Republican legislators, say voters lose the right to pick a replacement and politicians gain appointment power [Proposition 5 Arguments and Rebuttals]. The author, Sen. Josh Newman, was himself recalled in 2018, a fact both sides cite [Proposition 5 Arguments and Rebuttals; California Proposition 5 explainer; California Prop 5: recall election rules]. A September 2026 PPIC poll found 59% of likely voters leaning no [California Proposition 5 explainer], and no committees had raised money on either side as of October 22, 2026 [Proposition 5 (SCA 1) ballot measure contribution totals]. ### Record highlights - The Legislature passed SCA 1 largely on party lines: Senate 31-7 (Feb. 1, 2024), Assembly 59-17 (Aug. 30, 2024), Senate concurrence 32-8 (Aug. 31, 2024) [S3, S8, S10]. [Prop 5: Recall Reform, Eliminate Replacement Question (CA Decides); California voters will decide on amendment to eliminate successor election at state officer recall elections in 2026; California Proposition 5 (2026): eliminating the successor election in state officer recalls] - Since 1913, 179 recall attempts against state officials led to 11 elections and six removals: five legislators and one Governor [S6, S9, S12]. [SCA 1 (Newman) Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee analysis; Proposition 5: Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers (LAO analysis); Proposition 5 Official Title and Summary and Analysis by the Legislative Analyst] - In 2003, about 55.4% voted to remove Gov. Davis while Schwarzenegger won with about 48.6% of a 135-candidate field; in 2021 Gov. Newsom was retained 61.9% to 38.1% [S3, S8]. [Prop 5: Recall Reform, Eliminate Replacement Question (CA Decides); California voters will decide on amendment to eliminate successor election at state officer recall elections in 2026] - Newman was recalled in June 2018 after voting for the 2017 gas tax and regained a seat in 2020 [S14, S19]. [California Proposition 5 explainer; California Prop 5: recall election rules] - AB 2582 (2022) already removed the successor question from recalls of local officers in non-charter jurisdictions [S6]. [SCA 1 (Newman) Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee analysis] ### Stated positions - Newman says the current system gives bad actors an incentive to target officials and replace them with someone lacking majority support, and that he wrote the measure to protect majority rule (statements from 2023 to October 2026) [S6, S8, S19]. [SCA 1 (Newman) Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee analysis; California voters will decide on amendment to eliminate successor election at state officer recall elections in 2026; California Prop 5: recall election rules] - Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a sponsor, told lawmakers a recall should focus on whether to remove the official, not whether other candidates would be better [S15, S18]. [Proposition 5: Recall reform; Prop 5: recall elections (2026 voter guide)] ### Where sources disagree - Who calls the Governor special election: CalMatters says the Secretary of State would [S14], while the measure's text and the LAO describe consolidation with the next statewide primary without naming a caller [S1, S9]. [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 5 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 19); Proposition 5: Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers (LAO analysis); California Proposition 5 explainer] - The Fullerton Observer says Newman 'managed to regain his seat' after the 2018 recall without noting he was removed; other sources report he was removed and re-elected in 2020 [S10, S14, S19]. [California Proposition 5 (2026): eliminating the successor election in state officer recalls; California Proposition 5 explainer; California Prop 5: recall election rules] - Cost: supporters stress the $200 million-plus cost of the 2021 recall [S13], opponents say extra special elections raise costs [S14], and the LAO calls the net effect unknown and rare [S9]. [Proposition 5: Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers (LAO analysis); Proposition 5 Arguments and Rebuttals; California Proposition 5 explainer] ### Gaps - No campaign committees or spending on either side as of October 22, 2026 [S2]. - Little analysis of how existing vacancy statutes would apply office by office beyond Governor. - No independent study of how often recalls would be filed under the new rules. ### Arguments for / praise - The two-question format lets an official removed by a majority be replaced by a candidate with a small plurality; supporters say the leading 2021 replacement would have taken office with about 28% of recall voters. — *League of Women Voters of California, California Common Cause, Josh Newman* [Proposition 5 Arguments and Rebuttals; California Prop 5: recall election rules] - It removes the incentive to use recalls as a partisan shortcut to seats a challenger could not win in a regular election. — *League of Women Voters of California, California Common Cause, Little Hoover Commission* [California Common Cause press release on SCA 1; SCA 1 (Newman) Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee analysis; Proposition 5 Arguments and Rebuttals] - The Lieutenant Governor, elected statewide, provides continuity until voters pick a Governor in a regular election, and most recall states fill vacancies by succession or separate election. — *League of Women Voters of California, California Common Cause* [Proposition 5 Arguments and Rebuttals] - Recalls are costly; the 2021 recall cost more than $200 million. — *California Common Cause, League of Women Voters of California* [California Common Cause press release on SCA 1; Proposition 5 Arguments and Rebuttals] ### Arguments against / criticism - Voters lose the guarantee that removing an official produces a replacement they chose; politicians would appoint successors or seats would sit vacant until another election. — *Brian W. Jones, Joe Patterson, California Republican Party* [Proposition 5 Arguments and Rebuttals; Proposition 5: Recall reform] - Lieutenant Governor succession, often of the same party, makes a Governor recall a 'frying pan vs the fire' choice and would dissuade participation. — *Election Integrity Project California, California Republican Party* [SCA 1 (Newman) Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee analysis; Proposition 5: Recall reform] - Separate special elections would raise costs and leave communities without representation for months. — *Carl DeMaio, Republican lawmakers* [California Proposition 5 explainer; Prop 5 recall rules] - The recall has worked for over 100 years, and the author wants to protect politicians like himself from accountability. — *Brian W. Jones, Joe Patterson* [Proposition 5 Arguments and Rebuttals] ## Text analysis (as of 2026-10-28) Coverage: Full text of Proposition 5 as printed in the Text of Proposed Laws (S1): the amendments to Article II, Section 15 and Section 17, and Article V, Section 10 of the California Constitution. The text is complete, but the stored plain-text copy loses the strikeout and italic type the guide uses to mark deleted and added language, so deleted and added wording appear side by side. Readings of which words are added or removed (for example, that the plurality-successor sentence and the bar on the officer's candidacy in Section 15(c) are deletions, and that 'Secretary of State' replaces 'Lieutenant Governor' in Section 17) are inferred from sentence structure and should be confirmed against the printed guide. In particular, whether the phrase 'and, if appropriate, to elect a successor' in Section 15(a) is retained or struck cannot be determined from the stored text. The existing statutes that would govern vacancies were not provided. Drafting quality: **adequate**. The amendment is short and largely relies on existing constitutional and statutory vacancy rules rather than writing new ones, which keeps it internally simple and consistent with how other vacancies are filled. The core operative sentence in Section 15(c) is clear. The weaker points are in the new Governor-specific subdivision, Article V, Section 10(b): its timing trigger stacks two time conditions in one clause that can be read more than one way, it says a special election 'shall be called' without saying by whom, and it first gives the Lieutenant Governor the remainder of the term and then, in the same subdivision, gives the remainder of the term to the special-election winner, relying on an implied exception rather than express 'except' wording. The ballot title refers to 'Statewide Officers', while the operative Section 15 text applies to any recalled state officer, including legislators. None of these appear to be errors that reverse the measure's evident intent, but they leave questions for implementers. - **ambiguity** (medium, Art. V, Sec. 10(b)): The trigger combines two time conditions. 'During the first two years of the Governor's term' can be read as modifying when the recall occurs (the LAO reading) or as describing which 'next statewide election' counts. The clause also does not say whether 'the next statewide election' means the next primary or the next general election, which matters because the special election is consolidated with 'the statewide primary election'. Whether a Governor recalled in, say, the 20th or 22nd month of a term gets a special election or a Lieutenant Governor for the rest of the term depends on how these words are read. — "If the Governor is removed from office by recall before the close of the nomination period for the next statewide election during the first two years of the Governor’s term, a special election shall be called to replace the Governor" [Proposition 5 Text of Proposed Laws] - **gap** (medium, Art. V, Sec. 10(b)): The text uses the passive 'shall be called' and does not name who calls the special election, set a filing period, or say which election law governs it. Article II, Section 15(a) has the Governor call recall elections, but after a recall the Lieutenant Governor is acting as Governor and could be a candidate. Secondary sources describe this differently (one news explainer says the Secretary of State would call it), and the text does not settle it. Implementing statutes may be needed. — "a special election shall be called to replace the Governor and shall be consolidated with the statewide primary election and, if necessary, the subsequent statewide general election" [Proposition 5 Text of Proposed Laws] - **ambiguity** (low, Art. V, Sec. 10(b)): The first sentence of 10(b) gives the Lieutenant Governor the remainder of the unexpired term, and a later sentence gives the remainder of the term to the special-election winner. The exception is implied by sequence rather than stated with 'except' or 'until' language. The intended reading (the Lieutenant Governor serves until a special-election winner takes office) is clear from context and matches the Attorney General's summary, so the practical risk is low, but the wording is imprecise. — "the Lieutenant Governor shall become Governor for the remainder of the unexpired term" [Proposition 5 Text of Proposed Laws] - **other** (medium, Art. V, Sec. 10(b)): Because the replacement election is tied to the regularly scheduled statewide primary and general elections rather than a standalone date, the Lieutenant Governor could serve as Governor for many months (potentially more than a year, depending on when in the cycle the recall occurs) before voters choose a successor. The text sets a majority requirement in the primary and a top-two runoff, so the eventual winner must have majority or head-to-head support. This is a design choice the text makes explicit, not a drafting error. — "If no candidate receives a majority of the votes, the top two vote-getters shall compete in a special election consolidated with the subsequent statewide general election" [Proposition 5 Text of Proposed Laws] - **gap** (medium, Art. II, Sec. 15(c)): For every office other than Governor, the measure does not write its own replacement rules; it incorporates whatever the Constitution and statutes provide. Who fills a recalled officer's seat, and how quickly, therefore depends on vacancy laws outside the measure, which differ by office (appointment for most executive offices, special elections for legislative seats, per the LAO) and which the Legislature can change by statute. The measure sets no deadline for filling a recall vacancy. — "The vacancy shall be filled in accordance with this Constitution and statute" [Proposition 5 Text of Proposed Laws] - **other** (medium, Art. II, Sec. 15(c)): The only restriction on the recalled officer is a bar on appointment. The previous sentence barring the officer from being a candidate appears in the text as a deletion, so the recalled officer could run in any later special election for the same seat. This is an affirmative change from current law that the Attorney General's summary also states. — "provided that the officer who was the subject of the recall election shall not be appointed to fill the vacancy in that office" [Proposition 5 Text of Proposed Laws] - **other** (medium, Art. II, Sec. 15(c)): Section 15 governs recalls of state officers generally, not only statewide officers. The ballot title says 'Statewide Officers', but the operative text applies to any state officer subject to recall under Article II, including state legislators. The deleted reference to candidacies for offices filled under Article VI, Section 16(d) indicates the provision also reaches recalls of appellate judges. Voters reading only the title could understate the measure's scope. — "If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer is removed" [Proposition 5 Text of Proposed Laws] - **other** (low, Art. II, Sec. 17): Because the Lieutenant Governor would now succeed a recalled Governor, the measure moves the Governor's recall duties (such as calling the election) from the Lieutenant Governor to the Secretary of State, and adds a rule for simultaneous recalls. This avoids having the official who would succeed administer the recall. It is a reasonable conforming change, flagged so readers know the administrative role shifts. — "If recalls of the Governor and Secretary of State are initiated at the same time, the recall duties of both offices shall be performed by the Controller." [Proposition 5 Text of Proposed Laws] - **other** (low, Art. V, Sec. 10(e)): This is existing text, relettered. Because the new recall succession rule is placed in this section, disputes about it (for example, over the timing trigger in 10(b)) would go exclusively to the California Supreme Court. This is standard and provides a dispute-resolution path for the ambiguities noted above. — "The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all questions arising under this section." [Proposition 5 Text of Proposed Laws] - Beneficiary: The sitting Lieutenant Governor: Becomes Governor after a successful gubernatorial recall, either for the rest of the term or until a special-election winner takes office, instead of a replacement chosen on the recall ballot. — "if the Governor is removed from office by recall, the Lieutenant Governor shall become Governor for the remainder of the unexpired term" [Proposition 5 Text of Proposed Laws] - Beneficiary: State officers who are recalled: May run in a later special election for the seat they lost; the text bars only their appointment. — "the officer who was the subject of the recall election shall not be appointed to fill the vacancy in that office" [Proposition 5 Text of Proposed Laws] - Beneficiary: Whoever holds vacancy-filling authority under existing law (for most non-legislative offices, the Governor, per the LAO): Fills recall vacancies that today are filled by the replacement question on the recall ballot. — "The vacancy shall be filled in accordance with this Constitution and statute" [Proposition 5 Text of Proposed Laws] Limitations: This reading is based on a plain-text copy that does not show strikeout or italics, so which words are deleted or added is inferred. It does not review the statutes that govern vacancies, which determine much of the measure's practical effect for offices other than Governor. It assesses drafting only, not whether the change is desirable. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-10-22** — Secretary of State lists no primarily formed committees for or against Proposition 5 (California Secretary of State) - **2026-10-13** — Published: California Prop 5: recall election rules (NBC Los Angeles) - **2026-10-09** — Published: Prop 5: recall elections (2026 voter guide) (LAist) - **2026-10-06** — Published: Prop 5 recall rules (CalMatters) - **2026-10-02** — Published: Proposition 5 would delay replacing recalled state officials (KPBS) - **2026-10-01** — Published: Proposition 5: Recall reform (CalMatters) - **2026-10** — Published: California Proposition 5 explainer (CalMatters) - **2026-09-28** — Published: Proposition 5 Official Title and Summary and Analysis by the Legislative Analyst (California Secretary of State) - **2026-09-28** — Published: Proposition 5 Arguments and Rebuttals (California Secretary of State) - **2026-09** — PPIC poll finds 59% of likely voters leaning no on Prop 5 (CalMatters) - **2026-08-26** — Published: Proposition 5 Text of Proposed Laws (California Secretary of State) - **2026-08-15** — Published: California Proposition 5 (2026): eliminating the successor election in state officer recalls (Fullerton Observer) - **2026-07-16** — Published: Proposition 5: Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers (LAO analysis) (Legislative Analyst's Office) - **2026-06-29** — Secretary of State assigns Proposition number 5 (Fullerton Observer) - **2026-06-25** — ACA 13 removed from the ballot (Fullerton Observer) - **2024-09-03** — Published: California voters will decide on amendment to eliminate successor election at state officer recall elections in 2026 (Ballotpedia News) - **2024-08-31** — Senate concurs, 32-8; Legislature adjourns (Ballotpedia News) - **2024-08-31** — Senate concurs, 32-8 (Fullerton Observer) - **2024-08-30** — Assembly passes amended SCA 1, 59-17 (Ballotpedia News) - **2024-02-01** — Senate passes SCA 1, 31-7 (Ballotpedia News) - **2024** — SCA 1 adopted as Resolution Chapter 204, Statutes of 2024 (California Secretary of State) - **2023-11-09** — Published: Vote With the League (League of Women Voters of South San Mateo County) - **2023-05-08** — Published: SCA 1 (Newman) Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee analysis (California State Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee) - **2023-05-08** — Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee hearing on SCA 1 (California State Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee) - **2023-01-30** — Published: California Common Cause press release on SCA 1 (California Common Cause) - **2023-01-30** — SCA 1 introduced (California State Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee) - **2023-01-30** — SCA 1 introduced by Sen. Josh Newman (Fullerton Observer) - **2022** — AB 2582 enacted, removing the successor question from local recalls (California State Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee) - **2021** — Failed attempt to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom (LAist) - **2021** — Recall of Governor Gavin Newsom fails; supporters say it cost more than $200 million (California Secretary of State) - **2021** — Unsuccessful recall of Governor Gavin Newsom (CalMatters) - **2021** — Attempted recall of Gov. Gavin Newsom fails (CalMatters) - **2021** — Recall of Governor Gavin Newsom unsuccessful (California State Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee) - **2021** — Gov. Gavin Newsom retained in recall (Hoover Institution) - **2021** — Newsom defeats recall (NBC Los Angeles) - **2020** — Newman elected back into office (CalMatters) - **2020** — Newman re-elected to the state Senate (NBC Los Angeles) - **2018-06** — Josh Newman recalled from the state Senate (CalMatters) - **2018** — Josh Newman recalled from his state Senate seat (CalMatters) - **2018** — Senator Josh Newman recalled (California State Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee) - **2018** — Josh Newman recalled from the state Senate (NBC Los Angeles) - **2017** — Josh Newman votes for the gas tax (CalMatters) - **2003** — Arnold Schwarzenegger first won office through a recall (LAist) - **2003** — Arnold Schwarzenegger first elected through recall (CalMatters) - **2003** — Gov. Gray Davis recalled; Arnold Schwarzenegger wins replacement race among 135 candidates (CalMatters) - **2003** — Governor Gray Davis recalled (California State Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee) - **2003** — Gov. Gray Davis recalled (Hoover Institution) - **2003** — Gray Davis recall; Davis barred from the replacement question (CalMatters) - **1911-10** — Voters add recall to the Constitution via Proposition 8 (Ballotpedia News) ## Sources ### California Prop 5: recall election rules - NBC Los Angeles · news · published 2026-10-13 · stance: neutral - An NBC Los Angeles report by Gia Vang on Proposition 5, quoting author Josh Newman, Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, and KQED political correspondent Guy Marzorati on what the measure does, its costs, and which offices it covers. - Newman says that had the 2021 recall succeeded, Larry Elder would have become governor with 28 percent support. - Newman says his own 2018 replacement took office with 31 percent of the vote and that he regained his seat in 2020. - Brian Jones says the process is working and voters should be trusted. - Marzorati says the fiscal effect is unclear and the measure covers only state offices, not local recalls such as of district attorneys or mayors. - Reference: Proposition 5 voter guide PDF ### Prop 5: recall elections (2026 voter guide) - LAist · voter guide · published 2026-10-09 · stance: neutral - LAist's republication of the CalMatters voter guide to Prop. 5, with the ballot language, an LAO excerpt on how vacancies would be filled, supporter and opponent summaries, and the LAO fiscal highlight. - The measure would push the choice of a successor to a separate, later election in which the recalled official could run. - If a governor were recalled, the lieutenant governor would take over until voters elect a new governor. - Notable supporters listed: California Common Cause, the California Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, Indivisible CA: StateStrong and The Sacramento Bee editorial board. - Opponents listed: nearly all legislative Republicans. - Reference: Official voter guide: Proposition 5 - Reference: LAO analysis of Proposition 5 - Reference: Yes campaign website - Reference: CalMatters: Democrats want to change the rules for recall elections - Reference: KCRA: California voters to decide on Prop 5 ### Prop 5 recall rules - CalMatters · news · published 2026-10-06 · stance: neutral - An item in CalMatters' WhatMatters newsletter by Lynn La summarizing Kate Wolffe's Prop. 5 reporting. It frames the measure as making recalls 'a little more favorable to incumbents' and quotes Carl DeMaio's opposition. Most of the newsletter concerns unrelated stories. - Prop. 5 would eliminate the second question in California recalls and set new rules for replacing recalled officials. - Democrats back the measure, saying it could deter people from gaming recalls to win seats they could not win in a regular election. - Carl DeMaio and other Republicans oppose it, saying it would lead to gaps in representation and dissuade voters from approving recalls. - The newsletter writer argues the second question mattered in the 2003 Davis recall and in Newsom's 2021 strategy of discouraging prominent Democrats from entering the replacement race. - Reference: CalMatters Prop 5 explainer ### Proposition 5 would delay replacing recalled state officials - KPBS · news · published 2026-10-02 · stance: neutral - KPBS republication of the CalMatters voter-guide explainer for Proposition 5, titled 'Delay replacing recalled state officials.' It describes what the measure does, summarizes supporter and opponent arguments, and lists endorsements and the ballot text. - The measure would delay the election of a successor to a separate election, in which the recalled officer could run. - If the governor is recalled, the lieutenant governor would take over until a new governor is elected. - Supporter endorsements: California Common Cause, California Democratic Party, League of Women Voters, Indivisible CA: StateStrong; media endorsement: The Sacramento Bee. - Opponent endorsements: Election Integrity Project California, California Republican Party, Reform California. - Reference: Sacramento Bee endorsements - Reference: SCA 1 bill analyses - Reference: California Republican Party endorsements - Reference: Reform California voter guide ### Proposition 5: Recall reform - CalMatters · voter guide · published 2026-10-01 · stance: neutral - CalMatters' 2026 voter guide entry for Proposition 5 summarizes the measure's origin, the main arguments on each side, endorsements, and the ballot text. - Describes the measure as originating from a Secretary of State proposal after the failed 2021 recall of Governor Newsom, authored by Democrat Josh Newman, who was recalled in 2018. - Lists supporters: California Common Cause, California Democratic Party, League of Women Voters, Indivisible CA: StateStrong. - Lists opponents: Election Integrity Project California, California Republican Party, Reform California. - Lists media endorsements from The Sacramento Bee, The San Diego Union-Tribune and The Orange County Register (without stating each paper's side in the extracted text; linked headlines indicate the Union-Tribune and Register pieces argue against). - Reference: Legislative bill analyses for SCA 1 - Reference: Orange County Register endorsement: vote no on Proposition 5 - Reference: San Diego Union-Tribune: a vote against Prop 5 is a vote against the status quo - Reference: Sacramento Bee election endorsements - Reference: California Democratic Party endorsements - Reference: California Republican Party endorsements - Reference: CalMatters Prop 5 explainer ### California Proposition 5 explainer - CalMatters · news · published 2026-10 · stance: neutral - A CalMatters explainer by Kate Wolffe on Proposition 5, with the history of the 2003 Davis recall and the 2018 recall of the measure's author, Josh Newman, interviews with Newman, Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, and political scientist Kim Nalder, a description of how replacements would work, and September PPIC polling. - The measure was placed on the ballot by Democratic lawmakers in 2024 with support from the Secretary of State, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters; Republican lawmakers voted against it. - Newman was recalled in June 2018 after voting for the 2017 gas tax, in a campaign led by DeMaio's organization Reform California; Newman regained a seat in 2020. - CalMatters says the governor would call a special election within about four months for a recalled legislator; the article says the secretary of state would call a special election if a governor were recalled in the first two years. - A PPIC poll in early September found 59 percent of likely voters leaning no and 35 percent yes. - The article reports no money had been raised for or against the measure. - Reference: CalMatters Prop 5 voter guide page - Reference: PPIC Statewide Survey, September 2026 - Reference: Hiram Johnson 1911 inaugural address ### Proposition 5 Official Title and Summary and Analysis by the Legislative Analyst - California Secretary of State · official analysis · published 2026-09-28 · stance: neutral - The voter-guide pages for Proposition 5 containing the Attorney General's official title and summary, the final legislative votes on SCA 1, and the Legislative Analyst's analysis. The analysis explains the current two-question recall, how vacancies are filled today, what the measure changes, and its uncertain fiscal effects. - The Attorney General's summary says that if the Governor is recalled, the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor for the remainder of the term or until a successor is elected; other recalled offices remain vacant until filled by special election or appointment under existing law; and a recalled officer may run in a special election. - The final legislative votes on SCA 1 were Senate 32-8 and Assembly 59-17. - The LAO says that since 1913, 11 state recall efforts qualified for the ballot and six removed an official (five legislators and one Governor). - The LAO says legislative vacancies would typically be filled by special election and other non-Governor offices by gubernatorial appointment. - The LAO estimates possible savings or costs of millions of dollars per recall, a net effect it calls unknown. ### Proposition 5 Arguments and Rebuttals - California Secretary of State · official analysis · published 2026-09-28 · stance: mixed - The official ballot arguments and rebuttals for Proposition 5 printed in the state voter guide. The argument in favor and rebuttal to the argument against are signed by leaders of the League of Women Voters of California and California Common Cause (and former FPPC chair Dan Schnur on the argument); the argument against and rebuttal are signed by Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones and Assemblymember Joe Patterson. The guide notes the arguments are the authors' opinions and were not checked for accuracy. - Supporters argue the two linked questions create a loophole letting a replacement win with far less than 50 percent of the vote. - Supporters say the 2021 recall cost more than $200 million and that the leading replacement candidate would have taken office with about 28 percent of recall voters. - Opponents argue the measure takes away voters' ability to choose a replacement and lets politicians appoint successors or leaves seats vacant until another costly election. - Opponents note the recalled official could run in the later election, and they say the measure's author was himself recalled after voting to raise gas taxes. - Supporters' rebuttal says the Lieutenant Governor, elected statewide, would provide continuity until voters choose a Governor in a regular election. ### Proposition 5 Text of Proposed Laws - California Secretary of State · official text · published 2026-08-26 · stance: not_applicable - This is the official Text of Proposed Laws for Proposition 5 from the 2026 voter guide (page 118), which also contains the tail of Proposition 4 and the start of Proposition 37. It reproduces SCA 1 (Resolution Chapter 204, Statutes of 2024), amending Article II, Sections 15 and 17, and Article V, Section 10 of the California Constitution. In this plain-text copy, strikeout and italic formatting are lost, so deleted and added wording appear run together. - Article II, Section 15(c) is rewritten so that if a recall passes 'the office shall be vacant' and is filled 'in accordance with this Constitution and statute', with the recalled officer barred from being appointed to the vacancy. - The previous wording that the plurality winner among replacement candidates is the successor, and the bar on the officer being a candidate, appear in the text as deletions. - Article II, Section 17 is amended so the Secretary of State, rather than the Lieutenant Governor, performs the Governor's recall duties when a Governor recall is initiated; if recalls of the Governor and Secretary of State are initiated at the same time, the Controller performs both. - A new Article V, Section 10(b) makes the Lieutenant Governor Governor for the rest of the term after a recall, except that a recall before the close of the nomination period for the next statewide election during the first two years of the term triggers a special election consolidated with the statewide primary and, if no one wins a majority, a top-two runoff at the general election. ### California Proposition 5 (2026): eliminating the successor election in state officer recalls - Fullerton Observer · news · published 2026-08-15 · stance: neutral - A Fullerton Observer explainer by Nate White (status as of August 14, 2026) describing current recall law, what Proposition 5 changes, the legislative votes, recall history, and the main arguments, with listed sources. - Describes the measure's four changes: delete the successor question, bar appointment of the recalled officer while letting the officer run, set Governor-specific succession rules, and reassign recall administration duties to the Secretary of State. - Notes the measure spells out a replacement procedure only for the governorship, deferring to existing vacancy rules for other offices. - Votes: Senate 31-7 (Feb. 1, 2024), Assembly 59-17 (Aug. 30, 2024), Senate concurrence 32-8 (Aug. 31, 2024). - Secretary of State assigned the number 5 on June 29, 2026; it is one of 14 statewide measures and passes by simple majority. - As of the article, no committees had formed and the LAO analysis was not yet released. ### Proposition 5: Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers (LAO analysis) - Legislative Analyst's Office · official analysis · published 2026-07-16 · stance: neutral - The Legislative Analyst's Office analysis of Proposition 5 for the November 3, 2026 ballot. It describes current recall and vacancy rules, says the measure removes the replacement question and fills recall vacancies through existing vacancy processes (with a special process for Governor), and estimates an unknown net fiscal effect of possibly millions of dollars in savings or costs per recall. - Today a recall asks whether to remove the official and who should replace them; the top vote-getter on the second question takes office. - Under the measure, a recalled official's office becomes vacant; legislative seats would typically be filled through a special election and other non-Governor offices by gubernatorial appointment. - If the Governor is recalled before the close of the nomination period for the next statewide election during the first two years of the term, the Lieutenant Governor serves until voters elect a new Governor at a future statewide election; later in the term, the Lieutenant Governor serves out the term. - Costs could rise when a standalone special election is needed; savings could come from omitting replacement candidates from recall ballots. ### California voters will decide on amendment to eliminate successor election at state officer recall elections in 2026 - Ballotpedia News · news · published 2024-09-03 · stance: neutral - A Ballotpedia News article (Sept. 3, 2024) reporting that the Legislature referred SCA 1 to the November 2026 ballot, describing what it does, recall signature rules, how other states handle recalls, the legislative votes, and a statement from the authors. - The Legislature referred the amendment before adjourning Aug. 31, 2024; it was first referred to the 2024 ballot and moved to 2026 by AB 440. - It eliminates the simultaneous successor election and repeals the bar on the recalled officer running in a special election. - Of 39 states allowing recall at some level, 20 allow gubernatorial recalls, and six of those use a simultaneous form. - Votes: Senate 31-7, Assembly 59-17, Senate concurrence 32-8, largely along party lines. - Reference: Ballotpedia: California 2026 ballot propositions - Reference: Ballotpedia measure page ### Vote With the League - League of Women Voters of South San Mateo County · endorsement · published 2023-11-09 · stance: support - The League of Women Voters of South San Mateo County's 'Vote With the League' page for November 3, 2026 recommends YES on Proposition 5 and notes the state League (LWVC) is an official proponent. Most of the page covers other state and local measures. - Recommends Vote YES on Proposition 5. - Says Prop 5 ends a system that can hand office to a replacement supported by only a small plurality. - Describes Governor succession: the Lieutenant Governor serves and, if the recall occurs early enough, voters elect a successor at the next statewide election. - States the League of Women Voters of California is an official proponent. - Reference: LWVC ballot recommendations - Reference: LWVC Vote With the League ballot recommendations 2026 (PDF) ### SCA 1 (Newman) Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee analysis - California State Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee · official analysis · published 2023-05-08 · stance: neutral - The Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee analysis of SCA 1 (Newman) as introduced January 30, 2023, for a May 8, 2023 hearing. It describes existing recall law, the measure's changes, the history of California state recalls, the Little Hoover Commission's 2022 recommendations, the author's rationale, and support and opposition letters. It analyzes an earlier version than the one later amended in the Assembly and placed on the ballot. - The measure would eliminate the successor election, leave the office vacant until filled under existing law, repeal the bar on the recalled officer running in a special election, and bar appointment of the recalled officer. - It would assign the Governor's recall duties to the Secretary of State instead of the Lieutenant Governor, with the Controller handling both if the Governor and Secretary of State face recall at once. - Since 1913 there were 179 recall attempts of state officials; 11 qualified and six officials were recalled, including Senator Josh Newman in 2018. - The Little Hoover Commission's 2022 report recommended keeping the recall but replacing the two-part ballot with a 'snap' special election that includes the targeted official. - AB 2582 (2022) already removed the successor question from recalls of local officers in non-charter jurisdictions. ### California Common Cause press release on SCA 1 - California Common Cause · position statement · published 2023-01-30 · stance: support - A California Common Cause press release announcing its sponsorship of SCA 1 on the day Senator Josh Newman introduced it. It explains the one-question recall proposal, the Governor succession rules, and the group's reasons, and quotes Common Cause leaders. The release predates the measure's move to the 2026 ballot. - Common Cause says SCA 1 would put only one question on a state-level recall ballot. - A successful recall would be filled as any other vacancy, except for Governor; a first-two-years Governor recall leads to a replacement election consolidated with the next statewide primary and general, and later recalls leave the Lieutenant Governor in office for the rest of the term. - Common Cause says the 2021 Newsom recall cost over $200 million and that California is one of only two of 19 recall states with a two-question ballot. - Co-sponsors named: Secretary of State Shirley Weber and the League of Women Voters of California; principal coauthor Assemblymember Isaac Bryan. - Reference: Los Angeles Times: 2021 recall cost about $200 million ### California Eliminate State Officer Recall Successor Elections Amendment (2026) - Ballotpedia · voter guide · published undated · stance: neutral - ### Sacramento Bee election endorsements for all 10 California propositions on the ballot | Opinion - The Sacramento Bee (via AOL) · endorsement · published undated · stance: unknown - ### Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 5 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 19) - California Secretary of State · official text · published undated · stance: not_applicable - Official text of Proposition 5 (SCA 1, Res. Ch. 204, 2024) as attached from the voter guide's Text of Proposed Laws. It amends Article II, Sections 15 and 17, and Article V, Section 10. In this plain-text copy strikeout and italics are lost, so deleted and added wording run together; read against the Senate committee and LAO descriptions, the changes are as follows. - Article II, Section 15(c): if a recall passes 'the office shall be vacant,' filled 'in accordance with this Constitution and statute'; the recalled officer may not be appointed to the vacancy. The plurality-successor language and the bar on the officer being a candidate appear as deleted text. - Article II, Section 17: the Governor's recall duties shift from the Lieutenant Governor to the Secretary of State; the Controller handles both if the Governor and Secretary of State face recall at once. - New Article V, Section 10(b): after a Governor recall, the Lieutenant Governor serves out the term, except that a recall before the close of the nomination period for the next statewide election in the first two years of the term triggers a special election consolidated with the statewide primary, with a top-two runoff at the general election if no one wins a majority. - The text names a replacement procedure only for Governor; other offices fall to existing vacancy law. ### Proposition 5 (SCA 1) ballot measure contribution totals - California Secretary of State · campaign finance · published undated · stance: not_applicable - The Secretary of State's campaign-finance listing for Proposition 5 (SCA 1, Res. Ch. 204, 2024) shows no committees identified in support or opposition as of October 22, 2026. - No committees identified in support as of 10/22/2026. - No committees identified in opposition as of 10/22/2026. ### Prop 5: Recall Reform, Eliminate Replacement Question (CA Decides) - Hoover Institution · third party analysis · published undated · stance: neutral - The Hoover Institution's California Decides 'Proposition Lab' explainer on Proposition 5. It gives quick facts, quotes the key amended language, describes who supports and opposes it, compares the trade-offs using the 2003 and 2021 Governor recalls, lists potential benefits and risks, and poses open questions, without recommending a vote. - A recall would become a single removal vote; the vacancy is filled the way any midterm vacancy is filled, and the recalled official may run in any special election but may not be appointed. - Legislative votes: Senate 31-7 (Feb. 1, 2024), Assembly 59-17 (Aug. 30, 2024), Senate concurrence 32-8 (Aug. 31, 2024). - In 2003 about 55.4 percent voted to remove Davis while Schwarzenegger won with roughly 48.6 percent; in 2021 Newsom was retained 61.9 to 38.1 percent. - Hoover frames the trade-off as a minority-winner risk under current law versus a successor voters did not select under Prop 5. - It notes the measure governs recalls of every state officer, including legislators, and would take effect the day after the election if approved. - Reference: SCA 1 text (Resolution Chapter 204) - Reference: NCSL: recall of state officials - Reference: Secretary of State recall history 1913-present - Reference: Hoover PDF of this explainer ### Proposition 5 | Official Voter Information Guide - California Secretary of State · voter guide · published undated · stance: neutral - The Secretary of State's online voter guide page for Proposition 5 gives the ballot summary, the fiscal-impact line, the 'what your vote means' statements, and one-paragraph pro and con arguments. It says the measure was put on the ballot by the Legislature and would fill recall vacancies by a later special election or appointment instead of electing a replacement at the same time as the recall. - Under current law voters elect replacement candidates at the same election as the recall; the measure instead fills recall vacancies by subsequent special election or appointment. - Fiscal impact line: net fiscal effect unknown; in the event of a recall, savings or costs of millions of dollars depending on the office recalled. - A YES vote means recall ballots no longer include a replacement question; a NO vote keeps the replacement question. - The short pro argument cites endorsements by the League of Women Voters of California and California Common Cause; the short con argument says the measure limits voters' right to choose a replacement. - The page lists 'None submitted' for supporters and opponents in the summary box, and gives a contact for the Yes side (Josh Newman, Californians for a Prosperous Golden State, fixtherecall.com) but none for the No side. - Reference: Yes campaign website ## Suggested use Ask me neutral questions about this subject using the material above. Distinguish what the sources say from your own background knowledge, cite the source titles you rely on, and say when information may be out of date given the dates shown.