By Jerry Burris
Advertiser Editorial Editor

What do California Gov. Gray Davis, Honolulu politicians George Akahane, Toraki Matsumoto and the late Rudy Pacarro have in common?

They all share the pain of being recalled from office.

The state of Hawai'i has no recall provision, nor does it allow initiative or referendum. But Honolulu County does allow recall, and it was used with a vengeance against Akahane, Matsumoto and Pacarro when the former city councilmen switched political parties in 1985.

The three jumped ship from the Democrats in the wake of Mayor Frank Fasi, who did the same.

Voters — well, mostly activist Democrats — were incensed and immediately launched a successful recall drive. In October of that year, the three were replaced.

Those who argue for a statewide recall process in Hawai'i sometimes point to the fate of those three council members. Had it not been for recall, they would have remained happily in office. But not for long. If voters were truly unhappy with the councilmen's party-switching antics, they had a shot the very next year in the regular election. Indeed, Matsumoto and Pacarro did attempt to come back as Republican councilmen, but the voters said no.

There is a substantial difference between the dynamics of Honolulu's council recall and the recall of Davis.

It could be argued that when the three switched parties in midstream, they broke a basic covenant with the voters. They were elected as Democrats, presumably to represent what Democrats stand for.

Forget for a moment that party affiliation makes little difference at the county council level; that's why we now have nonpartisan elections. At least in theory, what Akahane, Matsumoto and Pacarro sold to the voters was a representative holding Democratic Party values.

In the Davis case, the issues were quite different. He was recalled primarily because voters were unhappy with the job he was doing. He wasn't accused of any crimes, political or otherwise.

That really should not be justification for recall. Political leadership is more than a popularity game. If elected officials felt they could be yanked from office whenever they made an unpopular decision, they would simply fail to act altogether.

One could argue that while Hawai'i does not allow direct recall, it is not impossible to remove a sitting governor from office. We have the same process of impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate as is followed by the federal government.

This power is rarely used, and rightfully so. Removing a person duly elected by the people on grounds other than the most serious threatens the electoral process itself.

California's initiative and recall process was installed by progressives fed up with the power games played by the "good old boys" of the early 20th century. This idealistic grassroots process has been perverted by money and cynical manipulation of the voters.

Does Hawai'i really want to follow suit?