Proposition 5

Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers

Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Under current law, voters decide at the same election whether (1) to recall a state officer, and (2) who will replace that officer if recalled. Under this measure: if the Governor is recalled, the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor for the remainder of the term or until a successor is elected; for all other recalled officers, the office will remain vacant until filled by a subsequent special election or appointment as specified in existing law; and a recalled officer may be a candidate in a special election to fill the office.

legislative_constitutional_amendment 2026-11-03 CA

Summary

Proposition 5 is a state constitutional amendment passed by the Legislature as Senate Constitutional Amendment 1 (Newman) of the 2023 to 2024 Regular Session and sent to the voters (Resolution Chapter 204, Statutes of 2024). Today a recall election for a state officer asks two questions: whether the officer should be removed, and who should replace the officer if removed.

Proposition 5 removes the second question. If a state officer is recalled, the office becomes vacant and is filled through the existing process for filling vacancies: a separate special election for a state Senate or Assembly seat, and appointment by the Governor for other offices except the office of Governor.

If the Governor is recalled, the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor, for the rest of the term or until a successor is elected, depending on when in the term the recall happens. The measure also lets a recalled officer run in a special election to fill the office, but says a recalled officer may not be appointed to fill that vacancy. It does not change how a recall is placed on the ballot or the number of signatures needed to qualify one.^S1^S2^S3^S4^S7

What a yes or no vote means

Yes means

A yes vote means recall elections would no longer include a question about who should fill the vacancy. Instead, vacancies typically would be filled through special elections or appointments, depending on the office and timing.^S1^S3^S6

No means

A no vote means voters would continue to be asked who should fill the vacancy as part of recall elections.^S1^S3^S6

How it works

Proposition 5 is a legislative constitutional amendment, not an initiative. The voter guide identifies it as Senate Constitutional Amendment 1 of the 2023 to 2024 Regular Session (Resolution Chapter 204, Statutes of 2024) and lists the final votes cast by the Legislature as Senate 32 ayes and 8 noes, Assembly 59 ayes and 17 noes.^S1^S6
Current law: the Legislative Analyst says a recall election asks voters two questions, first whether the official should be removed from office and second who should replace the official if removed. The person who receives the most votes on the second question takes the office, so a plurality is enough and a majority is not required. The Legislative Analyst notes there were 135 candidates in the 2003 Governor recall election and 46 candidates in the 2021 Governor recall election.^S2^S3
How often recalls reach the ballot: the Legislative Analyst says that since 1913 eleven state recall efforts have qualified for the ballot, nine by legislators and two by Governors, and that six have resulted in an official's removal from office, five legislators and one Governor.^S2^S3
What the measure changes: it removes the second question, meaning in future recall elections voters would only decide whether to remove an elected official from a state office, not who would replace the official. The Legislative Analyst says this makes the recall process like the existing process for filling vacant state offices, with a separate process for the office of Governor.^S1^S2^S3
Filling the vacancy after a recall: the Legislative Analyst says a recalled state official's office becomes vacant and, except for the office of Governor, the existing process for filling vacancies applies. A vacancy in the state Senate or Assembly typically would be filled by a separate special election, and the Governor would choose who fills a vacancy in any other office other than the office of Governor.^S2^S3
The Governor's office, when the Governor is recalled: the Attorney General's title and summary says the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor for the remainder of the term or until a successor is elected. The Legislative Analyst explains that the result depends on timing. 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 as Governor until voters elect a new Governor at a future statewide election. If the Governor is recalled later in the term, the Lieutenant Governor serves as Governor for the rest of the term.^S1^S2^S3^S7
The text of the measure amends Section 15 and Section 17 of Article II and Section 10 of Article V of the California Constitution. The Secretary of State's Text of Proposed Laws prints deleted language in strikeout type and added language in italic type. The amendment to Section 15 of Article II deletes the words "and, if appropriate, to elect a successor" from the call of the recall election, and deletes the sentence providing that the candidate who receives a plurality is the successor together with the sentence stating that the officer may not be a candidate and that there is no candidacy for an office filled under subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.^S7
The added language in Section 15 of Article II states that if the majority vote is to recall, the officer is removed and the office shall be vacant, that the vacancy shall be filled in accordance with the Constitution and statute, and that the officer who was the subject of the recall election shall not be appointed to fill the vacancy in that office. Read with the deletion of the candidate ban, the effect is that a recalled officer may run in a special election for the office but may not be appointed to it. The Attorney General's title and summary states the same point, that a recalled officer may be a candidate in a special election to fill the office.^S1^S7^S11
The amendment to Section 17 of Article II changes who performs the recall duties of the Governor when a recall of the Governor is initiated, replacing the Lieutenant Governor with the Secretary of State, and adds a sentence that if recalls of the Governor and the Secretary of State are initiated at the same time, the recall duties of both offices are performed by the Controller. The recall duties of the Secretary of State's own office continue to be performed by the Controller.^S7
The amendment to Section 10 of Article V adds a paragraph stating that, notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 15 of Article II, if the Governor is removed from office by recall the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor for the remainder of the unexpired term. It also provides that if the Governor is removed by recall before the close of the nomination period for the next statewide election during the first two years of the term, a special election is called to replace the Governor and is consolidated with the statewide primary election and, if necessary, the subsequent statewide general election. A candidate who receives a majority in the special election consolidated with the primary becomes Governor for the remainder of the unexpired term, and if no candidate receives a majority the top two vote-getters compete in a special election consolidated with the general election.^S7
Nonpartisan reporting on how the steps would work in practice: CalMatters reports that if the measure passes, the Governor would call a special election within about four months to replace a recalled state senator or Assembly member, that a recalled Governor in the first two years of the term would lead to a special election called by the Secretary of State, that a Governor recalled in the second two years of the term would be succeeded by the Lieutenant Governor for the rest of the term, and that a recalled statewide official such as the Treasurer, Attorney General or Insurance Commissioner would be replaced by a Governor's appointment serving until the next scheduled election.^S11
What does not change: the measure amends only Section 15 and Section 17 of Article II and Section 10 of Article V, so the signature requirement to qualify a recall for the ballot and the question of whether to remove the officer are unchanged. The Legislative Analyst describes the signature requirement and the recall question as part of the existing process that the measure leaves in place.^S2^S3^S7
Context from nonpartisan reporting: CalMatters reports that the proposal came from the Secretary of State's office after the unsuccessful 2021 recall of Governor Gavin Newsom, that the Secretary of State told lawmakers a recall election should focus on whether the official should be recalled rather than on which other candidate would be better, and that the author, Democrat Josh Newman, was himself recalled from a state Senate seat in 2018. CalMatters also reports Newman's own point that the ballot label says "statewide officers" even though legislative races would also be affected by the change.^S10^S11

Fiscal impact

The Legislative Analyst's summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact is: net fiscal effect unknown, with possible state and local government savings or costs of millions of dollars to administer recall elections, that these costs or savings would be rare, and that they depend on the office recalled and how often recalls occur.

The Legislative Analyst explains that a recall of a statewide office would involve state elections officials and local elections officials in all 58 counties, while a recall of a district-based office would involve officials only in those districts. On the cost side, a legislative office made vacant by a recall typically would be filled through a special election, and if that election could not be consolidated with a scheduled election, elections officials would need to run a standalone special election, which could cost millions of dollars per election.

On the savings side, removing the second question means ballots and voting materials would no longer include information about replacement candidates, which the Legislative Analyst says would produce savings when a Governor is recalled in the latter part of the term and for other offices where vacancies are filled by appointment, also potentially millions of dollars per election.

The Legislative Analyst says the net fiscal effect is unknown because it depends on future recalls, that how savings or costs are shared between state and county governments would depend on future decisions by the Legislature, and that the net effect represents less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the state's total General Fund budget.

Separately, CalMatters reports that the 2021 attempted recall of Governor Newsom cost about $200 million to administer, and that an opponent, Carl DeMaio, said the cost would double if two separate elections were required. The $200 million figure is CalMatters' reporting and the doubling is the opponent's claim.^S1^S2^S3^S4^S6^S11

Who benefits and who pays

Who benefits

The Lieutenant Governor: the Attorney General's title and 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, and the text of the measure provides that the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor for the remainder of the unexpired term when the Governor is removed by recall.^S1^S7
The Governor, as appointing authority: the Legislative Analyst says that except for the office of Governor, the existing process for filling vacancies applies after a recall, and that the Governor would choose who fills a vacancy in any other office other than the office of Governor. CalMatters reports that for a recalled statewide official such as the Treasurer, Attorney General or Insurance Commissioner the replacement would be a Governor's appointee serving until the next scheduled election.^S2^S3^S11
State and county elections officials, in the cases where costs fall: the Legislative Analyst says removing the second question would produce savings because ballots and voting materials would no longer include information about replacement candidates, and that those savings would occur when a Governor is recalled in the latter part of the term and for other offices where vacancies are filled by appointment.^S2^S3
Voters who want a recall decided only on whether the officeholder should remain: the Legislative Analyst says that under the measure voters in a future recall election would only decide whether to remove an elected official from a state office, not who would replace the official.^S2^S3
Supporters' claims: the argument in favor says the measure restores the recall to its original purpose of removing corrupt officials, closes a loophole that lets a replacement win with a small fraction of the vote, and reduces the politics and cost of future recalls. These are the supporters' arguments as printed in the voter guide.^S4^S5^S6
Organizations listed as supporters or endorsers: the voter guide argument in favor is signed by Lorrel Plimier, co-president of the League of Women Voters of California, Darius L. Kemp, executive director of California Common Cause, and Dan Schnur, former chair of the California Fair Political Practices Commission. CalMatters lists California Common Cause, the California Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters and Indivisible CA: StateStrong as endorsing the measure, and reports that the measure was placed on the ballot with the support of the Secretary of State and the good governance groups Common Cause and the League of Women Voters.^S5^S6^S10^S11

Who pays

State and county elections officials, and the taxpayers who fund them: the Legislative Analyst says Proposition 5 could result in higher costs if a special election is necessary to fill a vacant office after a recall, and that a standalone special election that cannot be consolidated with a scheduled election could cost millions of dollars per election to administer.^S2^S3
The Secretary of State's budget and county budgets: the Legislative Analyst explains that state law requires the Department of Finance to work with state and local elections officials to estimate the cost of a recall election for a state office, that the Legislature reviews the estimate and may provide funding, and that any remaining costs are paid by the Secretary of State's and counties' budgets.^S2
People in a district whose state Senator or Assembly member is recalled: the Legislative Analyst says a legislative office made vacant by a recall typically would be filled through a separate special election, and CalMatters reports that the Governor would call that special election within about four months. Opponents argue the seat would sit vacant for months and the district would be unrepresented in the meantime. The timing detail is CalMatters' reporting and the vacancy complaint is the opponents' claim.^S2^S3^S5^S11
Opponents' claims: the argument against says the measure takes away voters' ability to choose a replacement, that in many cases politicians rather than voters would choose who fills the vacancy, and that in other cases the seat would sit vacant until another election paid for by taxpayers. These are the opponents' claims as printed in the voter guide.^S4^S5^S6
Opponents' claims about cost: CalMatters reports that Republican lawmakers voted against the measure, arguing that it would dilute the power of the voters and add costs associated with follow-up special elections, and that an opponent said extra special elections would lead to higher costs to taxpayers.^S10^S11

Support and opposition

Supporters

Organizations

League of Women Voters of California
California Common Cause
California Democratic Party
Indivisible CA: StateStrong

Key arguments

Supporters say the measure restores the recall to its original purpose of removing an official who is corrupt or abusing power, and that the recall should not be used to redo an election as a political or partisan scheme. These are the supporters' claims as printed in the voter guide.^S5^S6
Supporters say the two questions on a recall ballot create a loophole because an official can be removed by a narrow majority while a candidate on the second question can win the office with far less than 50 percent of the votes cast. They point to the 2021 gubernatorial recall, saying the leading replacement candidate would have taken office with support from about 28 percent of all recall voters.^S5^S6
Supporters say the 2021 gubernatorial recall cost California taxpayers more than $200 million, that the recall lost by nearly the same number of votes the Governor won the regular election with, and that nearly 70 percent of California likely voters called the effort a waste of taxpayer money. These are the supporters' figures and characterizations as printed in the voter guide.^S5^S6
Supporters say the measure makes one change, removing the second question from the recall ballot, and that under it voters in a state recall would decide only whether an officeholder should be removed. They say that if a Governor is recalled the Lieutenant Governor, who is elected statewide, provides continuity of government, that other statewide officers would be filled by appointment under existing rules, and that legislative seats would be filled by special election.^S5^S6
Supporters say most states with recalls already fill vacancies by succession or a separate election rather than a same-day replacement contest, and that removing the second question removes the incentive to use a recall as a shortcut for partisan advantage.^S5^S6
The rebuttal to the argument against the measure says the measure preserves the power to recall an official by majority vote while closing the loophole that lets a replacement take office with a small fraction of the vote, and that candidates seeking statewide office should earn the office in a regular election rather than through a recall.^S5^S6
The voter guide's summary page reports that no supporters were submitted for the official supporters field, and lists Josh Newman and Californians for a Prosperous Golden State, with an address in Fullerton and the website fixtherecall.com, as the contact for additional information on the side in favor. The page lists no contact for the side against.^S4^S6
Money on the support side: the Secretary of State's 2026 ballot measure contribution totals page for this measure states that no committees were identified as supporting it as of 10/06/2026, so no supporting committee total is reported. The Fair Political Practices Commission's top 10 contributors list for the November 2026 general election, last modified 10/14/2026, has no entry for Proposition 5, because the list covers only committees that have raised at least $1,000,000. CalMatters reported on October 5, 2026 that not a dollar had been raised so far in support or opposition.^S8^S9^S11

Opponents

Organizations

California Republican Party
Election Integrity Project California, Inc.
Reform California

Key arguments

Opponents say the measure degrades California's century-old recall process by limiting voters' right to select a replacement for recalled officials, and that for statewide elected officials other politicians would choose a replacement. These are the opponents' claims as printed in the voter guide.^S4^S5^S6
Opponents say that for lower offices another costly, taxpayer-funded election would come months later, leaving the office vacant and the people unrepresented, and that the recalled official would be allowed to run in that later election to regain the seat.^S4^S5^S6
Opponents say the measure takes power away from voters, that in many cases politicians rather than voters would choose who fills a vacancy, and that the political establishment would gain more control while a voter's own vote matters less.^S5^S6
Opponents say the current process has worked for over 100 years and should not be changed, and they attribute the measure to its author's own experience of being recalled by voters after voting to raise gas taxes.^S5^S6
CalMatters reports that opponents including the California Republican Party and Election Integrity Project, which advocates for voter identification requirements and restrictions on mail-in voting, argue that letting the Lieutenant Governor assume the Governor's position if the Governor were recalled would dissuade people from participating in a recall election, and that almost all legislative Republicans also opposed the measure, arguing it would dilute the power of voters while protecting incumbents.^S10^S11
Opponents' claims about cost and representation: CalMatters reports that an opponent said the gap in representation may dissuade voters from approving a recall even if they want a change, and that extra special elections would lead to higher costs to taxpayers. These are the opponents' claims as reported by CalMatters.^S10^S11
The voter guide argument against is signed by Brian W. Jones, Senate Minority Leader, and Joe Patterson, Assemblymember. The rebuttal to the argument in favor is signed by the same two. The voter guide's summary page reports that no opponents were submitted for the official opponents field and lists no contact for the side against.^S4^S5^S6
Money on the oppose side: the Secretary of State's 2026 ballot measure contribution totals page for this measure states that no committees were identified as opposing it as of 10/06/2026, so no opposing committee total is reported. The Fair Political Practices Commission's top 10 contributors list for the November 2026 general election, last modified 10/14/2026, has no entry for Proposition 5. CalMatters reported on October 5, 2026 that not a dollar had been raised so far in support or opposition.^S8^S9^S11

How it could affect your household

Household type	Effect	Explanation	Confidence
Homeowner	Neutral	The measure changes the recall process and election administration, not property taxes, fees or housing rules, so it does not directly change what a homeowner pays or receives. Its fiscal effects fall on state and county election budgets, where the Legislative Analyst estimates possible savings or costs of millions of dollars per recall, and the net effect is unknown and less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the state's General Fund budget.^S2^S3^S7	Medium confidence
Renter	Neutral	The measure does not change rent rules, housing programs or taxes that a renter pays, so it has no direct effect on a renter's costs. Its only fiscal effects are on the cost of administering recall elections, paid from state and county election budgets, and the Legislative Analyst says the net effect is unknown and depends on future recalls.^S2^S3^S7	Medium confidence
W-2 earner ($100k to $250k)	Neutral	The measure creates no tax and changes no tax rate, so it does not directly change this person's state taxes or take-home pay. The direct changes are procedural: recall ballots would no longer include a replacement question, and vacancies would be filled by special election or appointment. The fiscal effect is on election administration costs, which the Legislative Analyst says are unknown in net and less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the state's General Fund budget.^S2^S3^S7	Medium confidence
High earner (over $1M)	Neutral	The measure adds no tax, surcharge or bracket and changes no personal income tax rule, so it does not directly change this taxpayer's state taxes. The changes it makes are to the constitutional recall process and to how a recalled officer's vacancy is filled.^S2^S3^S7	High confidence
Small business owner	Neutral	The measure imposes no business tax, fee or filing requirement and changes no employment or licensing rule. Its fiscal effects are on state and county election administration budgets rather than on businesses. One indirect consideration reported by CalMatters is that an opponent argues extra special elections would raise taxpayer costs, but that is a campaign claim and the Legislative Analyst says the net fiscal effect is unknown.^S2^S3^S11	Medium confidence
Retiree	Neutral	The measure changes no tax on retirement income, Social Security or pensions and creates no benefit or program for retirees. The changes are to the recall process and to how a recalled officer's office is filled. Its fiscal effects fall on election administration budgets, which the Legislative Analyst says could see savings or costs of millions of dollars per recall, with an unknown net effect.^S2^S3^S7	Medium confidence
Local government services user	Mixed	Direct effects run both ways. If a legislative seat is recalled and the special election to fill it cannot be consolidated with a scheduled election, the Legislative Analyst says county elections officials would have to run a standalone special election that could cost millions of dollars per election, and any costs not funded by the Legislature are paid from the Secretary of State's and counties' budgets. On the other side, removing the replacement question means ballots and voting materials would carry less information, which the Legislative Analyst says would save money in cases where a Governor is recalled late in the term or where vacancies are filled by appointment. The Legislative Analyst also notes that a district whose legislator is recalled could go without representation until the special election, which CalMatters reports would be called within about four months.^S2^S3^S11	Medium confidence

Tradeoffs

Majority rule for the officeholder versus voter choice of a successor: supporters say the current two-question ballot lets a replacement take office with far less than a majority, and they cite about 28 percent of recall voters for the leading replacement candidate in the 2021 recall. Opponents say removing the second question takes away the voters' right to choose who replaces a recalled official and hands that choice to politicians. Both are campaign claims printed in the voter guide.^S5^S6^S10
Savings against costs: the Legislative Analyst says removing the second question saves money on ballots and voting materials when a Governor is recalled in the latter part of the term or when a vacancy is filled by appointment, and that a standalone special election to fill a vacancy could cost millions of dollars per election. The net effect is unknown and depends on how often future recalls occur and which offices are recalled.^S2^S3
Representation during a vacancy: the Legislative Analyst says a recalled legislative office typically would be filled by a separate special election, and CalMatters reports the Governor would call that election within about four months. Opponents argue the district would be unrepresented for months; that is the opponents' claim.^S2^S3^S5^S11
Appointment against election for the replacement: for a recalled statewide officer other than the Governor, the replacement would be chosen by the Governor rather than by voters, while a legislative seat would go to a special election. CalMatters reports that a recalled statewide official such as the Treasurer, Attorney General or Insurance Commissioner would be replaced by a Governor's appointee serving until the next scheduled election.^S2^S3^S11
The recalled officer's own role: the text of the measure deletes the existing bar on a recalled officer being a candidate and adds language that a recalled officer may not be appointed to fill the vacancy. The Attorney General's title and summary states that a recalled officer may be a candidate in a special election to fill the office, and CalMatters reports the ousted official would be allowed to run for the same office in the special election.^S1^S7^S11
Scope of the change: the ballot label refers to statewide officers, but CalMatters reports that all California legislative races would also be affected by the change, and that the measure's author has said the title may confuse voters on that point.^S1^S11
A recall still requires signatures and a majority: the measure amends only Section 15 and Section 17 of Article II and Section 10 of Article V, so the signature requirement to qualify a recall and the vote on whether to remove the officer are unchanged. Only the second question and the process for filling the vacancy change.^S2^S3^S7
No campaign money reported on either side: the Secretary of State's contribution totals page for this measure says no committees were identified as supporting or opposing it as of 10/06/2026, the Fair Political Practices Commission's top 10 contributors list for the November 2026 general election has no entry for the measure, and CalMatters reported on October 5, 2026 that not a dollar had been raised so far in support or opposition. A September 2026 Public Policy Institute of California survey of likely voters found 35 percent would vote yes, 59 percent would vote no and 5 percent did not know.^S8^S9^S11^S12

Sources

Proposition 5 Official Title and Summary (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
Proposition 5 Analysis by the Legislative Analyst (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State and Legislative Analyst's Office Accessed 2026-10-17
Proposition 5 [Ballot], Propositions on the November 3, 2026 Ballot Legislative Analyst's Office Accessed 2026-10-17
Proposition 5 summary page (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
Proposition 5 Arguments and Rebuttals (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
Proposition 5 print version, Official Voter Information Guide (title and summary, LAO analysis, arguments and rebuttals, legislative vote count) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
Proposition 5 Text of Proposed Laws, Official Voter Information Guide (SCA 1, Resolution Chapter 204, Statutes of 2024) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
Proposition 5 – SCA 1 (Newman) Elections: recall of state officers. (Res. Ch. 204, 2024), 2026 Ballot Measure Contribution Totals California Secretary of State (Cal-Access) Accessed 2026-10-17
Top 10 Contributors List, November 2026 General Election (last modified October 14, 2026) California Fair Political Practices Commission Accessed 2026-10-17
CalMatters California Voter Guide 2026: Proposition 5, Delay replacing recalled state officials CalMatters Accessed 2026-10-17
Democrats want to change the rules for recall elections. Voters get their say with Prop. 5 (CalMatters explainer by Kate Wolffe, published October 5, 2026) CalMatters Accessed 2026-10-17
PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government, September 2026 (survey conducted September 4 to 10, 2026; Proposition 5 results among 1,103 likely voters, sampling error plus or minus 3.8 percent) Public Policy Institute of California Accessed 2026-10-17