California
Prop 5Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers
What your vote does
A NO vote means
Recall ballots keep two questions: whether to remove the official, and who replaces the official if removed. If removed, the second question's winner takes office. 3
Both ovals are empty on purpose. The choice is yours.
Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. 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 the exact wording from the official voter guide.
If it fails
Nothing changes if it fails
If Prop 5 fails, current law stays. Voters decide at the same election whether to recall a state officer and, if the officer is recalled, who will replace that officer. 2
Why it’s on the ballot now
Today, a recall ballot asks two questions. If the official is removed, the candidate with the most votes on the second question takes office. 3
Since 1913, 11 state recalls have made the ballot. Six removed an official: five legislators and one Governor. 3
The 2003 Governor recall had 135 candidates on the second question. The 2021 Governor recall had 46. 3
The legal text says this change was "proposed by Senate Constitutional Amendment 1" (SCA 1), Resolution Chapter 204, Statutes of 2024. 5
Supporters say voters rejected the 2021 Governor recall and that it cost taxpayers more than $200 million. Opponents say the current recall process has given voters the ability to remove officials for over 100 years. 4
The money
The Legislative Analyst says the net effect is unknown and depends on how often recalls happen and which offices are recalled. A recall could cost or save potentially millions of dollars: costs if a standalone special election is needed to fill the seat, savings when the seat is filled by appointment or a Governor is recalled late in the term, because ballots would no longer list replacement candidates. The net effect is under 0.1% of the state's General Fund. See the money chart for the latest filed totals. 3
- Amount
- Unknown; possibly millions of dollars per recall (LAO)
- How long
- Permanent change to the State Constitution
- Who pays
- County elections officials run most elections, and the Secretary of State oversees them. The Legislature may fund a recall; the Secretary of State and counties pay the rest. How any costs or savings are shared depends on future decisions by the Legislature. 3
Who bears the cost
State and county governments (election administration)
What they already pay
- Under current law, the Department of Finance estimates the cost of a state recall election. The Legislature may provide funding for it. Any remaining costs are paid from the Secretary of State's and counties' budgets. 3
If it passes
- The Legislative Analyst (LAO) says the net effect is unknown, because it depends on future recalls. It could mean savings or costs of millions of dollars. That is less than 0.1 percent of the General Fund budget. 3
- The LAO says a standalone special election to fill an office could cost millions of dollars. Dropping the replacement question could save money when an office is filled by appointment, or a Governor is recalled late in the term. Savings could be millions of dollars per election. 3
Who’s behind it
How it got on the ballot: State Legislature
The ballot label calls it a "Legislative Constitutional Amendment." The legal text says it was "proposed by Senate Constitutional Amendment 1." The Legislature's final votes on SCA 1 were 32 to 8 in the Senate and 59 to 17 in the Assembly. 152
Where the support comes from
Placed by who endorsed it and who funded it, not by our opinion. How we place measures
The California Democratic Party recommends Yes on Prop 5, while the California Republican Party and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a taxpayer group, recommend No. SPUR and the League of Women Voters of California, both good-government groups, also support it, while the San Francisco Green Party opposes it. No committee supporting or opposing Prop 5 has reported contributions. 891061171213
Endorsements
| Group | YES | NO | Neutral |
|---|---|---|---|
| Progressive slate | |||
| San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters | Yes | ||
| Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club | Yes | ||
| Moderate slate | |||
| GrowSF | Yes | ||
| Political parties | |||
| San Francisco Democratic Party | Yes | ||
| San Francisco Green Party | No | ||
| California Democratic Party | Yes | ||
| California Republican Party | No | ||
| Labor | |||
| California Teachers Association | No position | ||
| Other groups | |||
| SPUR | Yes | ||
| San Francisco Women's Political Committee | Yes | ||
| Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club | Yes | ||
| Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club | Yes | ||
| Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association | No | ||
| League of Women Voters of California | Yes | ||
Follow the money
No campaign committees have reported raising money for or against this measure.
The strongest case for and against
Each side’s best argument, written as its supporters would make it. Neither is our view.
Strongest case for
Supporters, including the League of Women Voters of California, California Common Cause and former Fair Political Practices Commission chair Dan Schnur, say recalls are meant to remove corrupt or abusive officials, not to redo an election. They say the second question lets a replacement win with far less than half the vote: had the 2021 recall passed, the leading replacement would have taken office with about 28% of recall voters. Most states with recalls, they say, fill vacancies by succession or a separate election. Under Prop 5, they say, voters still choose leaders, but statewide candidates should earn it in a regular election. 4
Strongest case against
Opponents, Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones and Assemblymember Joe Patterson, say Prop 5 takes away half of voters' recall power: choosing who replaces a removed official. They say the process has worked for over 100 years. They also say the measure's author was once recalled by voters. They argue that politicians, not voters, would often pick the replacement, possibly a political ally. In other cases, they say, the seat would sit empty until another costly election months later, and the recalled official could run in it. 4
Sources
Every fact on this page links to one of these sources.
- Ballot label: title (table of contents) and summary (Quick Reference Guide), Proposition 5 (en edition), CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 3, 7
- Proposition 5: Official Title and Summary (prepared by the Attorney General), CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 1
- Proposition 5: Analysis by the Legislative Analyst, CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 1-4
- Proposition 5: Arguments and rebuttals, CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 5-6
- Proposition 5: Text of Proposed Law, CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 1
- SPUR: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- San Francisco Green Party: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- California Democratic Party: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- California Republican Party: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- League of Women Voters of California: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- How endorsers line up on Prop 5: this guide's coalition groupings (endorsement method 1.0, data as of 2026-10-27)
- Campaign finance filings as of 2026-10-28 (compiled by this guide from CA Secretary of State: Proposition 5 contribution totals; data/money/ca-2026-11-p5.json, main@0dcbec8)