The Voters’ Right to Recall Is Not To Be Taken Lightly : It is reserved for removing officials who are guilty of crime, malfeasance or omission of duty. But increasingly, it is being used by opportunists.

Recall as practiced in California today is the most insidious part of our political process. In many respects it is an act of political rebellion. It requires the petitioners, those who advocate the removal from office of an elected official, to turn to character assassination for their success.

Occasionally the targeted elected official is the scoundrel that petitioners portray. However, increasingly, the recall process is being used by political opportunists to blindside elected representatives with opposing points of view.

Recall is tantamount to impeachment and should possess the same standards of significance and sincerity. It is the politicization of a judicial role reserved for the electorate whereby the voter is permitted to decide if an elected official has committed criminal acts, malfeasance or omissions of duty and deserves removal from office. It should not be taken lightly.

The case against state Sen. David Roberti is void of the foundation necessary to justify his removal. Roberti and I are partisan adversaries, yet there is zilch, zip, nada, absolutely nothing in his political or professional career that would warrant the disgrace of being recalled. The diatribe charging corruption circulated by the Coalition to Restore Government Integrity and Californians Against Corruption, the chief organizing committees of this fiasco, is nothing more than political rhetoric.

The alleged grounds for recall are that Roberti:

* Moved into the district in 1992, where he won a special election.

* Supported the regulation of treacherous assault weapons in 1989.

* Served as president pro tempore of the Senate in an era when other members of the body were found guilty of crimes. The recall sponsors clearly hope the voters will conclude that he is guilty by mere association.

None of these charges are criminal acts nor are they acts representing dereliction of duty.

The issues of residency and his political philosophy were presented to the voters and decided upon in 1992. As far as his associations go, what would the gun dealers say if we convicted them of criminal conspiracy for selling assault weapons to criminals?

Advocates of this recall are operating on a purely political level. The worst “crime” Roberti has committed is achieving a level of respectability and leadership. Being elected president pro tem of the Senate by his colleagues brings the responsibility of ensuring that the state’s work is done. He has done so with fairness and energy.

We elect officeholders who we believe will best represent our viewpoints. We cannot demand or expect that they vote precisely as we demand on every issue. We entrust specific legislation to our representatives in the belief that they will apply their best judgment to the detailed information available to them. Nothing denies the right of the electorate to petition their representative, but once a legislative decision has been made, we as an electorate should then use that information to judge the record at the next election cycle--not use it for prosecutorial fodder in a recall.

*

Recalls are not referendums on political philosophy. Those who damage the integrity of our rights, through misuse, for their political egos need to be reminded that the electoral process is the foundation of our freedoms. Perversion of the recall mechanism, as this surely is, filets open its pseudo-judicial role for political purposes.

This is not the only recall process that has attempted to bastardize the political process and it probably won’t be the last. Roberti has not committed a crime that would justify this form of crucifixion. Those who are attempting to discredit him should be rejected by all of us on Tuesday.