Proposition 5Constitutional amendment · Put on the ballot by lawmakers
Change recall replacement rules
Explain it like I'm 5
A recall now asks whether to remove an official and who should replace that person. This would remove the replacement vote, leaving the job to be filled under the normal state rules.
Yes vote
A state officer recall would no longer include a successor election, and the vacancy would be filled under state law.
No vote
Recall ballots would continue to include a vote on a replacement candidate.
The question to ask yourself
Should voters choose a successor immediately, or should ordinary vacancy rules fill the office?
The case for
- Keeps a crowded replacement contest from deciding an office with a small plurality.
- Lets voters focus the recall ballot on whether removal is justified.
- Uses established vacancy rules rather than creating a special replacement contest.
Backed by: California Common Cause, League of Women Voters of California, Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis
The case against
- Removes voters' direct choice of a successor at the same election.
- The replacement could be appointed or selected indirectly.
- A vacancy could last longer or be filled by someone voters did not choose.
Opposed by: Election Integrity Project California
- Money
- No reliable cost estimate is stated; future fiscal effects would depend on recalls and how resulting vacancies are filled.
- Don't be misled
- It would not end recalls; voters could still remove a state officer, but the replacement election would occur later or through another process.