# Prop 5: Changes recall elections (no replacement candidates on the same ballot)

URL: https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-5

- number: 5
- title: Changes recall elections (no replacement candidates on the same ballot)
- type: Legislative constitutional amendment (SCA 1, Newman)
- sponsor: Legislature; idea from Secretary of State Shirley Weber

**Our read: Lean yes.** Recalls would no longer seat a replacement who won with a plurality; the lieutenant governor steps in until a new election.

## Key findings
- The **2021 recall of Gov. Newsom cost taxpayers just over $200M** ($174M counties, $26M state). He kept his job. [^1]
- Under today's rules, the replacement with the most votes wins, even without a majority. [^2] Supporters say a replacement can win with "far less than 50%"; the 2021 recall would have seated someone backed by about 28% of recall voters. [^3] (In 2003, Schwarzenegger's 4.2M votes actually topped the 4.0M cast to keep Davis. [^4][^5])
- **No campaign on either side.** No committees registered as of Oct 22, 2026. [^3][^6]
- The author, Sen. Josh Newman, was **himself recalled in 2018** and won the seat back in 2020. [^7][^2]
- The idea came from Secretary of State Shirley Weber. Under Prop 5, a recalled governor would be replaced by the lieutenant governor until a new election (or for the rest of the term, if late in the term). [^7][^8]

## Track record
| Year | Recall | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 2003 | Gov. Gray Davis (D) | Recalled; Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) won the same-ballot replacement race |
| 2018 | Sen. Josh Newman (D) | Recalled; won the seat back in 2020 |
| 2021 | Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) | Survived; cost ~$200M |
| **Prop 5** | — | Removal-only vote; vacancy filled later or by appointment/succession |
[^2][^1][^8]

## What it does
- The recall ballot only asks whether to remove the official. No replacement question. [^8]
- The vacancy is filled by a later special election or by appointment. For governor, the lieutenant governor serves until a new governor is elected. The recalled official can run in that later election. [^7][^8]
- Cost: unknown; a separate special election could cost or save millions. [^8]

## Money and conflicts
- Democratic lawmakers put it on the ballot. Republican lawmakers voted no, saying it would "dilute the power of the voters" and add special-election costs. [^9] Opponents argue politicians, not voters, would pick who fills the seat. [^3]

## Does it solve a lasting problem?
- It fixes a real quirk (a plurality replacement), but it also removes the main reason to run a recall, which is getting your candidate in. Supporters call that stability; opponents call it a weaker voter tool.

## If you vote yes: accountability
**Bottom line:** If Prop 5 passes, an official removed by recall would be replaced later, in a special election or by succession or appointment. Who fills the seat, and when, becomes the thing to watch. [^8]

### Who's accountable
- **The Secretary of State** runs statewide recalls and certifies the results. That race (Weber vs. Wagner) is on this ballot, and the idea for Prop 5 came from Secretary Weber. [^7]
- **The Legislature** would write the details of the special elections that fill a seat. [^8]
- **County registrars** run the elections and bear most of the cost: the 2021 recall cost counties $174M. [^1]

### What to ask for
- A published cost estimate before any separate special election, and a deadline for holding it.
- Clear rules for who governs in the meantime, so vacancies don't stretch on.

### Public records to request (CPRA)
Anyone can file a California Public Records Act request (the state's version of FOIA), with no reason required. Agencies must respond within 10 days, or 24 in unusual cases. [^10] Ask your county registrar for its cost reports from the 2021 recall and any later special elections. Counties file these with the state to get reimbursed.

## Both sides
- **For:** Common Cause, League of Women Voters, CA Democratic Party, Indivisible, Sacramento Bee. A recall should be about removal, not a backdoor election.
- **Against:** CA Republican Party, Election Integrity Project, Reform California, SD Union-Tribune, OC Register. It protects incumbents and their party.

## Official voter guide (condensed) with annotations
- Official title: Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
- Summary: Today voters pick a replacement on the same ballot as the recall. This would fill vacancies through a later special election or an appointment.
- Fiscal impact: Net effect unknown; a recall could save or cost millions depending on the office.
- A YES vote means: Recall elections would no longer include a question about who should fill the vacancy.
- A NO vote means: Voters would continue to be asked who should fill the vacancy as part of recall elections.
- Argument for: "Restores the recall to its original purpose: removing corrupt officials." Closes a loophole that lets a replacement win with a small share of the vote.
- Argument against: "Limits voters' right to select a replacement for recalled officials." For statewide offices, other politicians would choose; for lower offices, a costly later election leaves the seat empty for months.
- Supporters: Sen. Josh Newman; League of Women Voters of CA and California Common Cause
- Opponents: No contact listed

Annotations (what the booklet leaves out):
- (con) For governor, the lieutenant governor would take over until the next election, usually someone from the same party. That's the core Republican objection. [^2]
- (pro) The plurality problem is real: under today's rules a replacement can win with far less support than the official being removed. [^2]
- (general) Author Sen. Josh Newman was himself recalled in 2018 and later won his seat back. The idea came from Secretary of State Shirley Weber, who is on your ballot. [^2]

## Sources
[^1]: AP via KPBS, recall cost (Feb 8, 2022). https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2022/02/08/california-recall-election-cost-taxpayers-200-million
[^2]: CalMatters explainer (Oct 2026). https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/10/california-election-proposition-5-explainer/
[^3]: Official Voter Guide arguments. https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop5-arg-rebuttals.pdf
[^4]: SoS 2003 Statement of Vote, recall question. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2003-special/ssov/recall_ques_sd.pdf
[^5]: Wikipedia, 2003 recall results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_California_gubernatorial_recall_election
[^6]: Ballotpedia News (Oct 26, 2026). https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/10/26/with-798-9-million-in-contributions-and-counting-2026-is-the-most-expensive-ballot-measure-election-cycle-in-california/
[^7]: CalMatters. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-5-recall-reform/
[^8]: LAO. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop5-110326.pdf
[^9]: LAist, Prop 5 explainer. https://laist.com/news/politics/democrats-want-to-change-rules-for-recall-elections-with-prop-5
[^10]: First Amendment Coalition, CPRA deadlines. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/resources/explainers/explainer-cpra-delays
[^11]: SoS contributions (no committees as of Oct 22, 2026). https://www.sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/helpful-resources/measure-contributions/2026-ballot-measure-contribution-totals/proposition-5-sca-1-newman-elections-recall-state-officers-res-ch-204-2024