This could mean increasing the number required to force a recalled election, raising standards to demand wrongdoing by the officeholder, and changing the process that could allow someone with a small amount of votes to replace state's top elected official.
Newsom stated, "I believe the recall process was weaponized," a day after his decisive win.
He stated that recall rules do not only affect governors but also school boards, city councils and county supervisors. This is especially true in Los Angeles and San Francisco where reform-minded prosecutors are being subject to recall efforts.
The governor pointed out that California has the lowest threshold for recall elections. Newsom's case was unique in that organizers needed to gather nearly 1.5 million signatures from California's 22,000,000 registered voters to get rid of him. This is 12% of his electorate. By contrast, Kansas requires 40%.
However, Newsom's organizers resisted the effort and asked questions about experts. They said California's law was better than others because it has fewer requirements that make recalling politicians more difficult.
Orrin Heatlie, the chief proponent of recall efforts, stated that "they're working against the will of people when they take actions like that to limit us ability to self-govern."
According to Joshua Spivak (an expert on recalls, senior fellow at Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform, New York), there is no benefit for Democrats pushing for changes that could anger voters.
Spivak stated that it was "crazy from a political standpoint, and I cannot imagine why they would invest political capital on it." Are you going to tell the voters, "Well, we didn’t address the homeless problem, but yes, we fixed recall?" It doesn't seem like a smart decision.
Newsom refused to reveal what changes he favours, stating that he was too close to recall targets who could face another attempt.
Others Democrats were more precise.
Marc Berman, Assemblyman, stated that we need to make a system that a very small number of Californians cannot create or initiate recalls that California taxpayers have spent nearly $300 million on. This distracts from our ability to govern for nine more months and has a real impact on our ability.
State Senator Josh Newman was recalled in 2018 and reclaimed his seat two years later. He said that he would propose two constitutional amendments to increase the required signatures, and to allow the lieutenant governor to complete the governor's term, if necessary.
As Democrats and independents look ahead to next year's midterm elections, the race was seen as a test to see if opposition of former President Donald Trump remains a motivating force. The 28-point advantage in the "no" answer to the question about recalling Newsom was due to 74% of the ballots being counted.
Berman and Steven Glazer, who are the heads of the election panels in their respective chambers at the Capitol, both promised bipartisan hearings in coming months with the goal to propose constitutional changes following the January reconvening of lawmakers. Voters must approve any changes to the recall law.
Vice chairman of the elections committee and GOP Assemblyman Kelly Seyarto said that Republicans would work to ensure that the proposals safeguard voters' right to hold politicians responsible.
These two election committees will examine recall laws from other states and hear from experts about California's process.
Berman stated, "I want to ensure that we have a system in which a governor cannot be recalled or replaced by someone" with fewer votes. "That's undemocratic and there's really not another way to say it."
Glazer stated that 19 states have some form of recall process. Only Colorado has a comparable two-stage process. California's system first asks voters whether they would like to see the incumbent removed. If a majority supports removal, then the candidate with the highest number of votes on the second question becomes the governor. This week, there were 46 candidates on the ballot.
He said that in most other recall states the only question on the poll is whether or not the official should be recalled. If the majority of voters vote yes, the office becomes vacant and can be filled either by appointment or in a special election.
Both Democrats and the leaders of the California Legislature have backed the changes. Their party has two-thirds majority in both chambers. The recall process was established in the state Constitution in 1911. However, the final decision will be made by the voters.
Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon stated, "This is an old system and it still works in its current form. It needs to be looked at."
According to a July Public Policy Institute of California Survey, 86% of likely voters support the possibility of recalling elected officials. This sentiment transcends political parties and regions. Two-thirds of voters supported minor or major changes, although Republicans and Democrats differed on the extent of these changes.
Newsom praised Wednesday's election results as proof that most voters support his approach towards the coronavirus pandemic. This included masking and mandated vaccines.
The recall supporters expressed their frustration at the months-long business closings and restrictions that kept most children from school. Newsom's critics were further upset by rising homicides, a crisis of homelessness and a scandal of unemployment fraud.