By David Shapiro

You'd think Jeremy Harris' status as Honolulu mayor was settled when the state Supreme Court ruled that Harris needn't step down to run for governor until he files nomination papers by July 23.

But some opponents continue to demand that he resign immediately — and suggest he's somehow unethical for following the same interpretation of the resign-to-run law that has guided other officials for nearly 25 years.

Enough, already. This bogus issue has distracted the 2002 campaign for governor for too long. Let's steer the debate back to issues that matter — education, the economy and the proper role of our state government.

For 24 years since Hawai'i's resign-to-run provision was enacted, officials making midterm runs for higher office stepped down when they officially filed nomination papers for the new office. Nobody squawked.

But former judge and Democratic legislator Russell Blair sued to force Harris to resign as mayor even before he officially filed for governor.

Circuit Judge Sabrina McKenna upheld Blair in a ruling that defied common sense, putting the Harris campaign on hold for two months until the Supreme Court overturned her decision.

"Just because the Supreme Court said he doesn't have to resign as mayor until he files his nomination papers for governor doesn't make it the right thing to do," said state Rep. Ed Case, who is opposing Harris in the Democratic primary.

Linda Lingle, Republican candidate for governor, claimed Harris misled voters when he ran for a full term as mayor only to abandon the job in midterm to run for governor.

"I think it's an ethical question about politicians keeping their word, and something Jeremy will have to answer for in the primary election — and if he gets through that, in the general election," she said.

The critics might be credible if they had objected when other officials did the same thing Harris is doing.

Two years ago, Mufi Hannemann resigned his City Council seat in midterm to run for mayor against Harris. As Harris is doing this year, Hannemann waited until the July filing deadline to step down. The same with Donna Kim, who resigned her council seat to run for the state Senate.

There wasn't a peep from anybody now attacking Harris, who clearly is the subject of selective outrage.

Harris never promised voters he'd serve his full term as mayor. When Hannemann raised the issue in 2000, Harris refused to rule out a run for governor. Voters elected him knowing full well he might not finish the term.

One benefit of resigning now would be to end persistent speculation about whether Harris is in the governor's race to stay. But he may need every minute between now and July 23 to assess whether his chances of winning are strong enough to warrant giving up his last two years as mayor.

Despite the brave front put up by his campaign, Harris has troubles. The two-month campaign hiatus killed his momentum, emboldened critics on the City Council to speak out against him, unnerved supporters and set back fundraising.

Of most worry is the ongoing criminal investigation into charges that the Harris campaign engaged in illegal fundraising in 2000. If that isn't resolved in his favor by July, it will be awkward for Harris to campaign under the cloud of possible indictments against top people in his organization.

There may be good reasons not to elect Jeremy Harris governor, but the phony resign-to-run controversy isn't one of them. It's time to move on to a high-minded discussion of our state's future.

David Shapiro can be reached by e-mail at dave@volcanicash.net