Following the unsuccessful attempt to recall Governor Gavin Newsom in 2021, California Democrats pushed for changes to how recalls work in the state, and that effort has landed on the November ballot as Proposition 5. According to CalMatters Housing reporting, this measure would fundamentally alter the recall process by eliminating what's known as the replacement question, where voters currently decide both whether to remove an official and who should take their place if that recall succeeds.
The current system has some interesting historical baggage. Back in 2003, when voters recalled Governor Gray Davis, the ballot included a long list of replacement candidates, ranging from serious politicians to celebrities like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gary Coleman. Political science professor Kim Nalder has pointed out that the fun factor of voting for Schwarzenegger may have driven more people to support the recall than they otherwise would have. Under today's rules, the candidate with the most votes wins, not necessarily a majority, which meant Schwarzenegger could win with a fractured field of opponents.
The only other successful statewide recall this century involved Josh Newman, a Democratic state senator who was recalled in 2017 just months after voting for a gas tax increase. Republican operative Carl DeMaio's organization led the effort to remove Newman, using what DeMaio called the "weak gazelle strategy" because Newman had been elected by such a narrow margin. Newman's recall loss handed Republicans a state Senate seat and ended Democratic control of that chamber. Newman was later reelected and has made recall reform a priority, putting forward the constitutional amendment that became Prop. 5.
Under Prop. 5, the replacement process would change depending on the office. For legislators, the governor would call a special election within about four months. For the governor, if recalled in the first half of the term, voters would choose a replacement in a special election, but if recalled later, the lieutenant governor would finish the term. For other statewide officials like the attorney general or treasurer, the governor would simply appoint someone to serve until the next regular election. The ousted official could run in any special election.
Republicans and others opposing the measure argue that the gaps in representation and costs of separate special elections would discourage voters from approving recalls, even when they want change. DeMaio himself has said that knowing they'd be without representation for months might silence communities that want to use the recall process. However, supporters and political scientists like Nalder suggest that's partly the point, believing fewer recalls overall would mean less political chaos and lower costs to taxpayers.
What I'm seeing locally in the Bay Area and across the East Bay is that people are paying close attention to how accessible the recall process remains. For buyers and sellers, what matters is stability in representation and governance, which affects policy on everything from housing development to zoning. Prop. 5 represents a genuine philosophical shift about whether recalls should be easier or harder to accomplish, and voters will ultimately decide whether that change reflects their values about democratic accountability versus governance continuity.
