Election 2026 · State of California

Proposition 5: Change how recalled state officials are replaced

Published September 29, 2026 · Updated October 2, 2026

Proposition 5 would remove the second question from state recall elections, the one asking who should replace the official if recalled. If a Governor is recalled, the Lieutenant Governor would become Governor, either for the rest of the term or until voters elect a new Governor, depending on timing. Other recalled offices would be filled the way vacancies are filled now: a special election for legislators and appointment by the Governor for most other offices.

Summary by CityHallPass, not the official text or legal advice. The official text controls: California Official Voter Information Guide: Proposition 5.

What would Proposition 5 cost?

The Legislative Analyst says the net effect is unknown. Separate special elections could cost millions of dollars each, while dropping replacement candidates from recall ballots could save millions. The Analyst says these costs or savings would be rare and depend on which office is recalled.

What it means for the City of LA

Proposition 5 covers only state officers: the Governor, other statewide officials, legislators and certain judges. Recalls of the Mayor, City Council members and other City officials follow the City Charter, which puts the recall question and the election of a successor on the same ballot; Proposition 5 does not change that. City residents would still vote in any state recall, and Los Angeles County's cost for the 2021 Governor recall was $52.9 million.

The details

The question on your ballot

Under current law, voters elect replacement candidates at the same time as the recall election. This measure instead fills recall vacancies by subsequent special election or appointment. Fiscal Impact: Net fiscal effect unknown. In the event of a recall, savings or costs of millions of dollars to administer the election depending on the office recalled. Supporters: None submitted Opponents: None submitted

This is not the Proposition 5 on the November 5, 2024 ballot, the measure on local bonds for affordable housing and infrastructure, which failed with 45.0% voting yes (Secretary of State, November 2024 Statement of Vote).

What would change

The rules for qualifying a recall, such as signature counts and deadlines, do not change. A recall election must still be held 60 to 80 days after signatures are certified, or within 180 days if combined with a regular election (text, Art. II, Sec. 15).

What it means for the City of Los Angeles

• City recalls are not affected. Proposition 5 amends only Sections 15 and 17 of Article II and Section 10 of Article V of the State Constitution, which cover state officers (SCA 1 status; LAO analysis). Recalls of City officials follow the City Charter. When a City recall petition qualifies, the Council calls an election on whether to recall the officer “and if recalled, for the election of his or her successor” (City Clerk petition handbook, p. 21, citing Charter sec. 432). That two-part City process stays the same.
• City voters and state recalls. City residents vote in any statewide recall and in recalls of legislators who represent them. In the 2021 Governor recall, Los Angeles County voters opposed removal 70.8% to 29.2% (Statement of Vote, recall question).
• Election costs. County election offices run state recalls. Los Angeles County reported $52,920,735 in costs for the 2021 recall, against a state allocation of $59,793,000 (Secretary of State cost report). The Analyst says Proposition 5 could raise or lower future recall costs and that the split between the state and counties “would depend on future decisions by the Legislature” (LAO analysis).
• We found no City Council or City Clerk position on Proposition 5 as of Sept. 30, 2026.

How it got on the ballot

A constitutional amendment written by the Legislature needs a two-thirds vote of each house (SCA 1 status).

• Jan. 30, 2023: Sen. Josh Newman introduced SCA 1. Assemblymember Isaac Bryan was the principal coauthor (SCA 1 history; SCA 1 status).
• Feb. 1, 2024: The Senate adopted it 31-7 (SCA 1 votes).
• Aug. 30-31, 2024: The Assembly adopted the amended version 59-17 and the Senate agreed 32-8 (SCA 1 votes). The Senate no votes were Alvarado-Gil, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh and Seyarto.
• Sept. 10, 2024: Filed with the Secretary of State as Resolution Chapter 204 (SCA 1 history). It appears on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot (SOS voter guide).

The 2018 recall of the measure’s author. Newman was recalled from the 29th Senate District in 2018, and Republican Ling Ling Chang was elected his successor on the same ballot (Secretary of State recall history). The Daily News reports the recall passed 58% to 42% after Newman voted for a gas tax increase in 2017, and that he won the seat back in 2020 (Daily News). The Sacramento Bee reports Chang won with just under 34% of the vote (Sacramento Bee via MSN).

Why the vote threshold is a simple majority. A constitutional amendment “if approved by a majority of votes cast thereon, takes effect” (Cal. Const. art. XVIII, sec. 4).

Recall history. Since 1913, 11 state recalls have qualified for the ballot, nine against legislators and two against Governors, and six officials were removed (LAO analysis; Secretary of State recall history). Two of the qualified recalls, both in 1994, targeted Los Angeles County legislators: Sen. David Roberti, who kept his seat, and Assemblyman Paul Horcher, who was removed (Secretary of State recall history).

What each side says

In the state voter guide. Arguments are the authors’ opinions and are not checked for accuracy by any official agency (arguments). No supporters or opponents were listed on the ballot label (ballot label).

Argument in favor, signed by Lorrel Plimier of the League of Women Voters of California, Darius L. Kemp of California Common Cause and former FPPC chair Dan Schnur (argument in favor):

• The two linked questions are “a dangerous loophole”: an official can be removed by a narrow majority and replaced by someone with “far less than 50%.”
• The 2021 recall “lost by nearly the same number of votes that the Governor won the regular election with” and cost “more than $200 million.”
• Had the 2021 recall succeeded, the leading replacement would have taken office “with support from only about 28% of all recall voters.”
• “In most states with recalls, vacancies are already filled by succession or a separate election.”

Argument against, signed by Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones and Assemblymember Joe Patterson (argument against):

• It takes away voters’ power to choose a replacement. In many cases, it says, politicians rather than voters would choose who fills the vacancy.
• Seats could sit vacant until “another costly election.”
• The recalled official could run in the next election.
• The measure’s author was recalled by voters after he voted to raise gas taxes.

Outside the guide.

• Carl DeMaio, who led the 2017-18 Newman recall, told the Sacramento Bee editorial board that politicians facing a recall could say “you won’t be represented for 12 months” (Sacramento Bee via MSN).
• Newman told the Bee: “So I got more votes by way of ‘no, don’t kick him out,’ than she got by ‘yes, please put her in’” (Sacramento Bee via MSN).
• The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association says the measure “makes a mockery of the recall process” (HJTA 2026 voting guide).

Checking the main factual claims against official records.

We did not check the “nearly 70% of likely voters called the effort a waste” figure or the claim about recall rules in other states.

Who supports and opposes it

Supporters

• League of Women Voters of California and California Common Cause, which signed the argument in favor (argument in favor; LWVC recommendations).
• California Democratic Party (CDP positions, Aug. 2, 2026).
• California Labor Federation and State Building and Construction Trades Council, the Sacramento Bee reported (Sacramento Bee via MSN).
• Former Sen. Josh Newman, the author (SCA 1 status).

Opponents

• Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones and Assemblymember Joe Patterson, who signed the argument against (argument against).
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA 2026 voting guide).
• Reform California (Carl DeMaio), which reported spending against it (Cal-Access raw data export).
• The legislators who voted no (SCA 1 votes).

Editorial boards. The Los Angeles Daily News recommends a no vote (Daily News, Aug. 12, 2026). The San Diego Union-Tribune also says no (San Diego Union-Tribune, Sept. 25, 2026). The McClatchy California editorial board, for the Sacramento Bee, Fresno Bee, Modesto Bee, Merced Sun-Star and San Luis Obispo Tribune, recommends a yes vote (Sacramento Bee via MSN). We found no LA Times editorial board position as of Sept. 30, 2026.

Money for and against

No committee primarily formed to support or oppose Proposition 5 reported raising money in 2026 in the Cal-Access data through Sept. 28, 2026 (Cal-Access raw data export). The Secretary of State’s contribution totals page listed no committees, as of its Aug. 2 update, when checked on Sept. 30.

Source: Cal-Access raw data export (Sept. 29 and 30 exports) and Newman committee statements (Cal-Access), analyzed by CityHallPass. Newman’s committee’s July-September 2026 statement was not in the data we used.

Outside spending

Reform California with Carl DeMaio (ID 1268914) reported $7,500 on July 1 and $30,000 on Aug. 27 against Proposition 5. The same payments are listed against several other propositions, so the share spent on Proposition 5 cannot be separated (Cal-Access raw data export).

Independent analysis

• Legislative Analyst. The measure “changes the recall process to make it like the existing process for filling vacant state offices, except for the process to recall the Governor.” Net costs or savings could be millions of dollars per recall, less than 0.1% of the General Fund (LAO analysis).
• Past replacement results. In the 2003 recall there were 135 replacement candidates, and 46 in 2021 (LAO analysis). The Sacramento Bee reports Arnold Schwarzenegger won the 2003 replacement vote with 48.6% (Sacramento Bee via MSN).
• Recall attempts. The Sacramento Bee, citing the Secretary of State, reports 182 attempts to recall state officials since 1913, 11 of which qualified (Sacramento Bee via MSN).

Interaction with other measures on this ballot

The Analyst’s analysis names no conflict between Proposition 5 and other measures on this ballot (LAO analysis). Proposition 39 (voter ID) also changes election rules, but for voting procedures, not recalls (Prop 39 title and summary).

If it passes

• When it takes effect. Five days after the Secretary of State files the statement of the vote (Cal. Const. art. XVIII, sec. 4). It would apply to any later recall of a state officer.
• Disputes. The State Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over questions about a vacancy in the office of Governor (text, Art. V, Sec. 10(e)).
• Legal challenges. We found no reported legal challenge as of Sept. 30, 2026.

Key moments

We found no debate focused on Proposition 5 in news coverage as of Sept. 30, 2026.

• Newman recall (June 2018). Voters in the 29th Senate District recalled Newman and elected Ling Ling Chang (Secretary of State recall history).
• Governor recall (Sept. 14, 2021). Voters kept Gov. Gavin Newsom, 61.9% to 38.1% (Statement of Vote).
• Legislature passes SCA 1 (Aug. 31, 2024) (SCA 1 history).
• Editorials split (August-September 2026). The Daily News and San Diego Union-Tribune said no; the McClatchy papers said yes (Daily News; San Diego Union-Tribune; Sacramento Bee via MSN).

Polls

Source: PPIC, September 2026, pp. 7, 22 and 30. Respondents read the ballot title and label. Support was under a majority in every partisan group (40% of Democrats, 34% of Republicans, 28% of independents) and across demographic groups and regions. One percent of likely voters named Proposition 5 as the measure they were most interested in. The Berkeley IGS September poll did not report a result for Proposition 5 in the coverage we found (LA Times via Yahoo).