The right of voters to recall elected officials for such causes as misconduct in office, incompetence, neglect of duties or corruption exists in most other states, but not in Pennsylvania.

Efforts by state Rep. Jaret Gibbons, D-10th, to rectify that Keystone State shortcoming deserves serious consideration by the General Assembly.

Residents of this state should have an easy process to pursue removal of an official for serious reasons — and only for serious cause. A recall vote should not be based on frivolity, personal unpopularity, or such things as a controversial vote cast or an issue being pursued.

In all of their provisions, the two bills introduced by Gibbons that would enable voters to remove an elected official must stand the test of serious cause, and whether they do will be determined by House committee meetings and consideration by the House as a whole.

Under Gibbons’ proposal, if a sufficient number of voters signed a petition seeking removal of an official, a special vote would be held on whether to remove the official.

The bills are aimed at changing the state constitution to allow the recall. That means the measure would have to pass in two sessions of the Legislature and, after that, get the voters’ approval.

So, even if the Gibbons measures are successful this year, it could be a couple of years before the enhanced right of removal actually is in effect.

Currently, outside of being found guilty of committing a felony, an official can be removed only through an extensive impeachment process.

A removal process so cumbersome that it makes the effort unlikely is not in the best interests of municipalities, counties and school boards — and the people they serve.

At least 29 states — some say the total is about 36 — permit recall elections in local jurisdictions. In 2011, there were at least 150 recall elections in the United States. Of those, 75 officials were recalled, and nine officials resigned under threat of recall.

Recall supporters say the process provides a way for citizens to retain control over elected officials not representing the best interests of their constituents, or who are unresponsive or incompetent.

Opponents say that the recall process can lead to an excess of democracy — that the threat of a recall election lessens elected officials’ independence. The opponents add that the recall undermines the principle of electing good officials and giving them a chance to govern until the next election.

Arguments on both sides are sound, but a requirement of serious cause should ease the concerns of opponents.

In Butler County, some people have been critical of county Commissioner Jim Eckstein’s conduct at meetings. But disagreement over mere conduct should not be a basis for removal, without more serious grounds.

Connoquenessing Township residents might have had grounds for pursuit of recall based on ethics violations by two of their officials in recent years, but could not do so without the recall process Gibbons envisions.

The General Assembly should not toss Gibbons’ bills on a shelf and forget about them. They are worthy of a floor vote, and similar consideration in the state Senate.

Recall power is a component of good government, as most of the other states recognize.

Pennsylvania should join them.