Proposition 5: Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers
21 sources, dated 2023-01-30 – 2026-10-13· last searched 2026-10-28
Official title: Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Overview
Synthesized 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session from 19 sources dated 2023-01-30 to 2026-10-13. Machine-written; numbers link to the sources below.
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 18,11,7. 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 18,9,7. Legislative seats would typically go to special elections and other offices to gubernatorial appointment 11,7. The LAO calls the net fiscal effect unknown: possibly millions of dollars in savings or costs per recall 11,7. Supporters, led by the League of Women Voters and California Common Cause, say the current format lets a replacement win with a small plurality 8; opponents, led by Republican legislators, say voters lose the right to pick a replacement and politicians gain appointment power 8. The author, Sen. Josh Newman, was himself recalled in 2018, a fact both sides cite 8,6,1. A September 2026 PPIC poll found 59% of likely voters leaning no 6, and no committees had raised money on either side as of October 22, 2026 19.
Record
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].20,12,10
Since 1913, 179 recall attempts against state officials led to 11 elections and six removals: five legislators and one Governor [S6, S9, S12].14,11,7
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].20,12
Newman was recalled in June 2018 after voting for the 2017 gas tax and regained a seat in 2020 [S14, S19].6,1
AB 2582 (2022) already removed the successor question from recalls of local officers in non-charter jurisdictions [S6].14
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].14,12,1
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].5,2
Arguments for
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 Newman8,1
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 Commission15,14,8
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 Cause8
Recalls are costly; the 2021 recall cost more than $200 million. — California Common Cause, League of Women Voters of California15,8
Arguments against
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 Party8,5
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 Party14,5
Separate special elections would raise costs and leave communities without representation for months. — Carl DeMaio, Republican lawmakers6,3
The recall has worked for over 100 years, and the author wants to protect politicians like himself from accountability. — Brian W. Jones, Joe Patterson8
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].18,11,6
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].10,6,1
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].11,8,6
What we could not find
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.
Questions to consider
Is a plurality-elected replacement or a Lieutenant Governor or appointee the better outcome of a successful recall?
How long would legislative and other seats sit vacant under existing special-election rules?
Would the change deter frivolous recalls, legitimate ones, or both?
How often would a separate special election be needed, and at what cost?
Text analysis
Written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session from 2 primary texts9,18. An evaluative machine reading: check each point against its quoted evidence.
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: 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.
Findings
ambiguitymedium impactArt. 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”9
gapmedium impactArt. 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”9
othermedium impactArt. 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”9
gapmedium impactArt. 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”9
othermedium impactArt. 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”9
othermedium impactArt. 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”9
ambiguitylow impactArt. 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”9
otherlow impactArt. 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.”9
otherlow impactArt. 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.”9
Who benefits, as written
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”9
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”9
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”9
Open questions in the text
Who calls the gubernatorial special election under Article V, Section 10(b), and what nomination rules apply to it?
Does 'during the first two years of the Governor's term' refer to the timing of the recall or of the next statewide election, and does 'next statewide election' mean the primary or the general?
How long could the Lieutenant Governor serve as Governor before a special-election winner takes office, depending on when in the election cycle the recall occurs?
When the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor, how is the resulting Lieutenant Governor vacancy filled, and could the new Governor appoint a successor?
For appointed vacancies (for example, Attorney General), how long may an appointee serve before voters choose, and must a recalled-officer vacancy be filled within any deadline?
Is the phrase 'and, if appropriate, to elect a successor' in Article II, Section 15(a) struck by the measure? The stored text does not show strikeout.
Would future statutory changes to vacancy rules change how recall vacancies are filled without another vote of the people?
Limits: 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.
Ask your own AI about this
Start a conversation in an assistant you use, already loaded with this page's research. Nothing goes from this site to those services until you click; after that, their privacy terms apply.
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.
Facts, claims & caveats
Notable supporters
California Common Cause; California Democratic Party; League of Women Voters; Indivisible CA: StateStrong; The Sacramento Bee editorial board
Originally published by
CalMatters
Secretary of State Shirley Weber told lawmakers a recall should focus on whether the official should be removed, not on whether other candidates would do better.
Josh Newman says the measure would cut down on 'political gamesmanship.'
Opponents argue letting the lieutenant governor step in would discourage participation in recall elections; nearly all legislative Republicans said it would weaken voters' power and protect incumbents.
Limits: Largely duplicates CalMatters' guide; opponent coverage is brief.
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 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).
Facts, claims & caveats
Supporting endorsers
California Common Cause; California Democratic Party; League of Women Voters; Indivisible CA: StateStrong
Opposing endorsers
Election Integrity Project California, Inc.; California Republican Party; Reform California
Media endorsements listed
The Sacramento Bee; The San Diego Union-Tribune; The Orange County Register
Secretary of State Shirley Weber told lawmakers a recall election should focus on whether the official should be recalled, not whether other candidates would be better.
Josh Newman says the measure would reduce 'political gamesmanship' that elevates candidates who would not otherwise win a majority.
The California Republican Party and Election Integrity Project argue letting the lieutenant governor assume the governorship would dissuade participation in recalls.
Almost all legislative Republicans argued the measure would dilute voters' power while protecting incumbents.
Limits: A brief guide; the extracted page did not include campaign-finance figures or which side each newspaper endorsed. Endorsement lists may change.
California Secretary of Stateofficial analysisNeutral
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.
Facts, claims & caveats
Final Senate vote on SCA 1
32-8
Final Assembly vote on SCA 1
59-17
State recalls qualified since 1913
11 (nine legislators, two Governors)
Officials removed by recall
6 (five legislators, one Governor)
Replacement candidates in 2003 / 2021 Governor recalls
135 / 46
Fiscal estimate
Net unknown; savings or costs potentially millions of dollars per recall; less than 0.1 percent of the General Fund
The Legislative Analyst's Office says costs could rise if a vacancy requires a standalone special election that cannot be consolidated with a scheduled election.
The Legislative Analyst's Office says savings could occur when a Governor is recalled late in the term or when a vacancy is filled by appointment, because ballots would no longer carry replacement-candidate information.
The Legislative Analyst's Office says how costs or savings are shared between the state and counties would depend on future decisions by the Legislature.
Limits: An official, nonpartisan description of effects; it does not evaluate whether the change is desirable. Fiscal figures are ranges dependent on the frequency of future recalls.
Date from the page. Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
California Secretary of Stateofficial analysisMixed
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.
Facts, claims & caveats
Argument in favor signers
Lorrel Plimier (League of Women Voters of California), Darius L. Kemp (California Common Cause), Dan Schnur (former chair, California Fair Political Practices Commission)
Argument against signers
Brian W. Jones (Senate Minority Leader), Joe Patterson (Assemblymember)
Voter guide pages
38-39
The League of Women Voters of California and California Common Cause argue the current process encourages political actors to target officials they could not beat in a regular election and to install replacements lacking broad support.
The League of Women Voters of California and California Common Cause claim nearly 70 percent of California likely voters called the 2021 recall a waste of taxpayer money.
The League of Women Voters of California and California Common Cause say most states with recalls fill vacancies by succession or separate election rather than a same-day replacement contest.
Brian W. Jones and Joe Patterson argue the measure gives Sacramento politicians power to appoint friends or allies to replace ousted officials.
Brian W. Jones and Joe Patterson argue the current recall system has worked for over 100 years and should not be changed.
Brian W. Jones and Joe Patterson argue the measure's author wants to protect politicians like himself from accountability.
Limits: These are advocacy arguments printed as submitted and not fact-checked by any official agency. Claims about costs and motives are the authors' own.
Date from the page. Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
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 Constitution Article II, Sections 15 and 17; Article V, Section 10
Voter guide page
118
Governor special election rule
Majority needed in primary-consolidated special election; otherwise top two compete at the general election
Limits: The extracted text loses the strikeout and italic formatting that distinguish deleted from added language, so readers should compare with the printed PDF. The page also includes unrelated text from Propositions 4 and 37. The text alone does not explain how existing vacancy statutes would apply to each office.
Date from the page. Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
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.
Facts, claims & caveats
State recalls qualified since 1913
11 (nine legislators, two Governors)
Officials removed
6 (five legislators, one Governor)
Candidates in replacement question
135 in 2003; 46 in 2021
Net fiscal effect
Unknown; potentially millions of dollars in savings or costs per recall, under 0.1 percent of General Fund
The LAO says the cost of a standalone special election to fill a vacancy could be millions of dollars per election.
The LAO says savings from removing the second question would depend on how many candidates would have appeared and could be millions of dollars per election.
The LAO says such costs or savings would be rare and depend on the office recalled and how often recalls occur.
Limits: Describes mechanics and fiscal effects only; does not take a position. Its account of the Governor process summarizes the text and does not address every timing scenario.
Date from the page. Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
California State Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committeeofficial analysisNeutral
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.
Facts, claims & caveats
Bill
SCA 1 (Newman), version of 1/30/23
Hearing date
2023-05-08
Sponsors
Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, California Common Cause, League of Women Voters of California
Opposition
Election Integrity Project California, Inc.; three individuals
Recall attempts since 1913
179; 11 qualified; 6 recalled
Related law
AB 2582 (Bennett), Chapter 790, Statutes of 2022
Senator Newman, the author, says the current system gives bad actors an incentive to target officials and replace them with someone lacking majority support, and that SCA 1 would make recalls fair and not subject to political gamesmanship.
The League of Women Voters and California Common Cause wrote that SCA 1 would keep access to the recall while ensuring outcomes are democratic and broadly supported.
Election Integrity Project California wrote that having the Lieutenant Governor assume the governorship would make a gubernatorial recall a 'frying pan vs the fire' situation and suppress participation, and that the current system is effective and fair.
The Little Hoover Commission concluded current procedures can produce an undemocratic outcome by letting a replacement win with fewer votes than the incumbent.
Limits: Analyzes the January 2023 introduced version; the measure was amended later in the Assembly, so details may differ from the final ballot text. Support and opposition lists reflect letters received at that time.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
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.
Facts, claims & caveats
Source measure
SCA 1 (2023-24), Resolution Chapter 204, Statutes of 2024
Provisions amended
Cal. Const. Art. II, Secs. 15, 17; Art. V, Sec. 10
Governor special election
Majority in primary-consolidated special election, else top-two at the general
Limits: Strikeout and italic formatting are lost, so which words are deleted versus added is inferred; compare with the printed PDF. The text does not explain how existing vacancy statutes apply to each office. Duplicates another stored copy of the same text.
Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
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.
Facts, claims & caveats
Placed on ballot by
Legislature
Yes-side contact
Josh Newman, Californians for a Prosperous Golden State, fixtherecall.com
Fiscal impact (ballot label)
Net fiscal effect unknown; savings or costs of millions of dollars in the event of a recall
Supporters' short argument says Proposition 5 restores the recall to its original purpose of removing corrupt officials and closes a loophole that lets replacements win with a small fraction of the vote.
Opponents' short argument says Proposition 5 degrades the century-old recall process, lets other politicians choose replacements for recalled statewide officials, and for lower offices requires another costly election months later while the office sits vacant.
Limits: A landing page with abbreviated arguments; the full official text, the Legislative Analyst's analysis, and full arguments and rebuttals are in separate documents. The arguments are the campaigns' opinions, not verified statements.
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.
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.
Facts, claims & caveats
Senate vote
31-7 on 2024-02-01; concurrence 32-8 on 2024-08-31
Assembly vote
59-17 on 2024-08-30
2003 recall
About 55.4% to remove Davis; Schwarzenegger about 48.6% of 135-candidate field
2021 recall
Newsom retained 61.9% to 38.1%
Opponents listed
Election Integrity Project California; California Taxpayers Association
Supporters listed
League of Women Voters of California; California Common Cause
Proponents say the two-question format lets an official be removed by a majority and replaced by a candidate with a small plurality.
Critics argue the measure weakens the recall as a direct check because voters lose the guarantee that removal produces a chosen replacement, and a lieutenant governor of the same party could take over.
Hoover's explainer says the measure could lower ballot costs in some recalls but raise them if a separate special election is needed.
Limits: A think-tank explainer that weighs both sides; its benefit and risk lists are its own framing, and its open questions are not answered by the source.
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.
Facts, claims & caveats
Sponsor
California Common Cause
Co-sponsors
Secretary of State Shirley Weber; League of Women Voters of California
Principal coauthor
Assemblymember Isaac Bryan
Coauthors
Senators Tom Umberg, Caroline Menjivar, Catherine Blakespear
Claimed 2021 recall cost
Over $200 million
Jonathan Mehta Stein, then Executive Director of California Common Cause, said the amendment strengthens democracy by reducing opportunities for bad actors to abuse the recall and protects against anti-democratic minority rule.
Laurel Brodzinsky, Common Cause's legislative director, said the amendment makes recalls less confusing and keeps taxpayer dollars from being wasted on partisan power grabs.
Common Cause argues SCA 1 would create a disincentive for gubernatorial recalls as political footballs.
Limits: An advocacy press release from a sponsor; it carries no date in the extracted text and refers to a 2024 ballot target that later changed to 2026. Its claims are the organization's own.
League of Women Voters of South San Mateo CountyendorsementSupports
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.
Facts, claims & caveats
Recommendation
YES on Proposition 5
Official proponent
League of Women Voters of California
The League of Women Voters says Prop 5 ends a system that can hand office to a replacement supported by only a small plurality.
Limits: An endorsement from an official proponent organization; it gives a one-paragraph rationale and no analysis of drawbacks.
California Secretary of Statecampaign financeRecord
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.
Facts, claims & caveats
Support committees
None identified as of 2026-10-22
Opposition committees
None identified as of 2026-10-22
Limits: Lists only committees primarily formed for this measure; it does not capture spending by general-purpose committees or other organizations, and may change after the date shown.
Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
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.
Facts, claims & caveats
Qualified state recalls since 1913
11; six removed (per Secretary of State as cited)
Josh Newman says the recall process has evolved into a political tool used to seize power and that he authored Prop 5 to protect majority rule.
Brian Jones says taking this power from the people and putting it in a 'supermajority institution' is 'really ridiculous.'
Critics argue Prop 5 would install someone 'more of the same' and strip decision-making power from voters.
Guy Marzorati says the measure could cost more if a separate election is needed or save money by dropping the successor question, and likely would not change state funds much.
Limits: A short TV news story built around a few quotes; the 28 and 31 percent figures are Newman's statements as reported.
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.
Facts, claims & caveats
Carl DeMaio: 'If you vote yes on recall, then you're going to be without a representative for months, if not longer, and so you're going to silence your community.'
The CalMatters newsletter writer characterizes the plan as turning recall elections 'into something a little more favorable to incumbents.'
Limits: A short newsletter item that summarizes other reporting; it includes the writer's own characterization and does not cover the measure's details.
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.
California Common Cause; California Democratic Party; League of Women Voters; Indivisible CA: StateStrong; The Sacramento Bee
Opponent endorsements
Election Integrity Project California, Inc.; California Republican Party; Reform California
Secretary of State Shirley Weber told lawmakers a recall should focus on whether the official should be recalled.
Josh Newman says the measure would reduce political gamesmanship.
The California Republican Party and Election Integrity Project argue the lieutenant governor succession would dissuade participation in recalls; almost all legislative Republicans argued it would dilute voters' power and protect incumbents.
Limits: Republished CalMatters content that largely duplicates the CalMatters voter guide; brief and not an analysis of the text.
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.
Facts, claims & caveats
PPIC September 2026 poll
59% likely no, 35% likely yes
2021 Newsom recall cost
About $200 million
Signatures collected to recall Newman
More than 64,000 (20% of last vote)
Newman recall result
Close to 60% voted to recall; replaced by Republican Ling Ling Chang
Campaign money
Not a dollar raised in support or opposition as of publication
Josh Newman says the 'political gamesmanship' of recalls was not what Hiram Johnson intended, and that the ballot title may confuse voters because legislators are affected though they are not statewide officers.
Carl DeMaio argues that if Prop. 5 passes, a gap in representation may dissuade voters from approving recalls, and that extra special elections would raise taxpayer costs.
Kim Nalder suspects the change would lead to fewer recalls, which she says is likely a guiding force in Democrats' support.
Republican lawmakers argued the measure would dilute voters' power and add costs of follow-up special elections.
Limits: Journalism with quoted partisans; its description of who calls the gubernatorial special election goes beyond what the measure's text states. Poll results are a snapshot from early September.
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.
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.
Facts, claims & caveats
Number assigned
2026-06-29, press release PR26-98
Senate vote
31-7 on 2024-02-01; concurrence 32-8 on 2024-08-31
Assembly vote
59-17 on 2024-08-30
Statewide measures on ballot
14
Recall attempts since 1913
179; 11 qualified; 6 removals
Proponents such as the League of Women Voters of California argue the two-question format confuses voters and lets poorly supported challengers replace officials.
Opponents including Election Integrity Project California argue voters should always be able to choose a replacement when they oust an official.
Limits: Written before the LAO analysis and official arguments were published. One sentence says Newman 'faced a recall in 2018 and managed to regain his seat' without noting he was removed in 2018 and re-elected in 2020, which other sources report.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
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.
Facts, claims & caveats
Signature thresholds
12% of last vote for executive officials; 20% for legislators and judges
Sen. Josh Newman and Asm. Isaac Bryan said the current system offers bad actors an incentive to target officials and replace them with someone lacking majority support, and that SCA 1 would make recalls democratic, fair, and not subject to political gamesmanship.
Limits: Written in 2024 at the time of referral; it predates the 2026 campaign, arguments, and LAO analysis, and quotes only the authors.