Yet, it would be a reason that I find completely legitimate in regards to recall.

It would be simple enough to prove misfeasance based on the definition provided - all that has to be done is show how a statute or regulation was violated in the execution of an activity.

However, malfeasance or nonfeasance... other than codified statute or regulation, how do you prove that those requirements were met? Who should be the final arbiter of whether the target of the recall is a malfeasor or nonfeasor? The secretary of state? A "committee"?

Surely that would allow for problems. What of the SoS doesn't like the target, and just lets anything qualify? What about the flip side, where that final arbiter(s) determines that the recall target didn't participate in malfeasance or nonfeasance, regardless of how damning the evidence?