When a state legislator or a statewide official such as the governor faces a recall, voters are asked two questions: Should the lawmaker or official be removed from office? And who should replace them? Proposition 5 would eliminate the successor question. If a statewide officeholder is recalled, the governor would appoint a replacement, while legislative vacancies would be filled by special election. If the governor is recalled, the lieutenant governor would serve until another governor is elected.
Yes Argument
California’s current recall system allows a replacement candidate to take office without winning the support of a majority of voters. In the unsuccessful 2021 recall of Gov. Gavin Newsom, the top replacement candidate received the support of just 28% of voters in the recall election — with millions of voters simply leaving the second question blank. Getting rid of the replacement question keeps the recall election focused on the official facing removal.
No Argument
Proposition 5 takes away the ability of Californians to choose their leaders. Voters who recall a governor, attorney general or secretary of state should not have to wait months to pick a replacement — all while the position is filled by someone who was not elected to the job. California’s recall system has worked well for more than a century and doesn’t need to be changed.
Key Supporters
In Support
- California Common Cause
- California Democratic Party
- League of Women Voters of California
In Opposition
- Brian Jones, California Senate minority leader
- California Republican Party
- Election Integrity Project California
More Statewide Propositions
Should California issue $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds for affordable housing, homebuying opportunities and veterans and homelessness programs?
Should state and local governments have the option to provide public funding for election campaigns?
Should California issue $25 billion in revenue bonds to create a “middle-class” homebuyer downpayment assistance program?
Should California issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research?
Should California tax the wealth of billionaires to fund health care services?
Should California require ongoing audits of programs funded by specific taxes, and make those tax revenues subject to the state’s spending limit?
Should the state prohibit new taxes on financial assets like stocks and investment accounts and prohibit most retroactive taxes?
Should local tax measures placed on the ballot by voter signature face a higher threshold if the tax will be used for a specific purpose?
Should certain nonprofit community health clinics be required to spend at least 90% of their revenue on healthcare services?
Should California speed up its environmental review process for certain projects?