Status as of August 14, 2026. Every factual claim below is sourced to a primary or clearly identified secondary document; sources are listed at the end.

Proposition 5 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment appearing on California’s November 3, 2026, statewide general election ballot. It originated as Senate Constitutional Amendment 1 (SCA 1), authored by then-state Sen. Josh Newman (D) and co-authored by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D), and was chaptered as Resolution Chapter 204, Statutes of 2024.

Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber assigned it the number “5” on June 29, 2026, in press release PR26-98, which also opened the window for submitting ballot arguments. It is one of 14 statewide measures on the November ballot, numbered Propositions 1 through 5 and 37 through 45. (A fifteenth, ACA 13, was removed from the ballot on June 25, 2026, pursuant to ACA 21.)

Like all California ballot propositions, it passes with a simple majority.

What California law says now

Article II, Section 15 of the California Constitution currently provides that a recall election for a state officer puts two questions on the same ballot:

• Should the officer be recalled? A majority of votes on this question removes the officer.
• Who should succeed the officer? The successor is “the candidate who receives a plurality” — no majority required.
• The current text also bars the officer who is the subject of the recall from running as a candidate for successor.
• Separately, Article II, Section 17 currently assigns the Lieutenant Governor to perform the Governor’s recall-related duties when a recall of the Governor is initiated, and assigns the Controller to perform the Secretary of State’s recall duties when the Secretary of State is the target.

The measure amends Article II, Sections 15 and 17, and Article V, Section 10 of the state Constitution. According to the Legislative Counsel’s digest published by the Secretary of State, it would:

• Delete the successor question. A state officer recall ballot would ask only whether to remove the officer. If a majority votes yes, “the office will remain vacant until it is filled in accordance with the Constitution and statute.”
• Change who may fill the seat. The measure repeals the existing prohibition on the recalled officer running to fill the office at a subsequent special election, but adds a new prohibition: that officer may not be appointed to fill the vacancy.
• Set specific rules for a recalled Governor. Under new Article V, Section 10(b):
• The Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor for the remainder of the unexpired term.
• Exception: 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 Governor’s term, a special election is called and consolidated with the next statewide primary election.
• If a candidate wins a majority in that consolidated special election, that candidate becomes Governor for the rest of the term. If no one wins a majority, the top two advance to a runoff consolidated with the subsequent statewide general election.
• Reassign recall administration duties. The Secretary of State — rather than the Lieutenant Governor — would perform the Governor’s recall duties when a gubernatorial recall is initiated. If recalls of the Governor and Secretary of State are initiated simultaneously, the Controller performs both offices’ duties.

One point worth flagging: the measure spells out a replacement procedure only for the governorship. For other state offices — legislators, other statewide constitutional officers — it defers to whatever existing constitutional and statutory vacancy rules apply, which differ by office and by timing.

What the Yes / No Vote means

A YES vote eliminates the simultaneous successor election for state officer recalls; vacancies are filled through existing vacancy procedures.
A NO vote keeps the current system, in which voters decide removal and pick a potential successor on the same ballot.

How it reached the ballot

In California, changing the state Constitution isn’t easy—it takes a two-thirds majority in both legislative chambers. For this session, that means at least 54 votes in the Assembly and 27 in the Senate, and crucially, such amendments can go to voters without needing the Governor’s approval.

On January 30, 2023, State Senator Josh Newman introduced Senate Constitutional Amendment 1 (SCA 1), aiming to overhaul the state’s recall system. The amendment sailed through the Legislature, with votes reflecting stark party divisions: every yes vote came from Democrats, while Republicans stood united in opposition.

The recorded votes show the process:
– Senate passage: February 1, 2024 – 31–7
– Assembly passage (amended): August 30, 2024 – 59–17
– Senate concurrence: August 31, 2024 – 32–8

California’s history with recall elections dates back to 1911, when Proposition 8 was passed, allowing voters to remove elected officials. In over a century, only 11 out of 179 recall attempts have made it to the ballot, and just six resulted in actual removals from office. Notably, Governor Gray Davis was recalled in 2003, while Senator Newman himself faced a recall in 2018 and managed to regain his seat.

The 2003 recall of Davis was particularly contentious; voters approved it by a narrow margin, and Arnold Schwarzenegger won the subsequent election with less than 50% of the vote. Conversely, in 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom defeated his recall attempt by a significant margin, prompting discussions about the effectiveness of the recall process itself.

Proponents of SCA 1 argue that the current system can confuse voters. The two-question format of recalls often leaves people unsure if they can vote on a replacement candidate after rejecting the recall of an official. Groups like the League of Women Voters of California have championed the amendment, suggesting it would reduce the likelihood of well-supported candidates losing their positions to poorly supported challengers.

However, not everyone is on board. Opponents, including the Election Integrity Project California, argue that voters should always have the opportunity to choose a replacement if they decide to oust an official. They warn that switching to an automatic succession might undermine voter choice.

As of now, no committees have stepped forward to either support or oppose the amendment, and its financial impacts remain uncertain. The Legislative Analyst’s Office is expected to release an analysis soon, providing voters with more clarity as they prepare for the November 3, 2026 election.

As California considers reforming its recall process, the upcoming election presents a crucial opportunity for voters to express whether they believe the current system needs an update or if it should remain as is.

Sources

• California Secretary of State, Press Release PR26-98, “Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D., Assigns Numbers to November Ballot Measures, Invites Ballot Arguments,” June 29, 2026. (Legislative Counsel’s digest for Proposition 5; full proposition list.)
• California Secretary of State, “Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures” (SCA 1, Res. Ch. 204, 2024; note on ACA 13 removal).
• California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide portal, voterguide.sos.ca.gov (publication timing; registration deadline).
• Ballotpedia, “California Eliminate State Officer Recall Successor Elections Amendment (2026)” (side-by-side constitutional text, roll-call votes, support/opposition testimony, campaign finance, recall history tables).
• California Elections Code § 11382, added by AB 2582 (Bennett), Stats. 2022, Ch. 790.
• AB 94 (Bennett), approved by the Governor October 3, 2025; Assembly Committee on Elections analysis of AB 94, March 26, 2025.
• Legislative Analyst’s Office, Proposition Analysis index (lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Propositions).
• Contemporaneous coverage and certified results of the October 7, 2003, and September 14, 2021, gubernatorial recall elections.