Even if South Carolina's deficit balloons to the size of California's, S.C. voters can't do unto Gov. Mark Sanford what their California cousins can do unto Gov. Gray Davis.

That's because the gubernatorial recall doesn't exist in the Palmetto State.

"Mark Sanford's only recall is in 2006; we call it an election," said USC political scientist Blease Graham.

It's California, not South Carolina, that's out of step with most of the nation: Only 18 states provide for the recall of a governor.

Most set the bar far higher than the Golden State, which requires the signatures of only 12 percent of registered voters to set a recall in motion.

And where a governor's alleged mishandling of fiscal policy is sufficient grounds for a recall in California, most other states with a recall option would first have their governor commit a clear-cut crime, such as embezzlement.

That's why a governor has been recalled only once before -- in North Dakota in 1921.

Aside from North Dakota and California, the following states also sanction the gubernatorial recall: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin.

There's a reason Southern states, Georgia excepted, aren't recall-friendly, Graham said.

States began adopting recall provisions in the Progressive Era, the so-called "good government" movement at the turn of the 20th century. The Progressives had a far greater impact in the Midwest and West than in the South, Graham said.

That doesn't mean Sanford or any governor in a recall-free state can do anything he pleases and not fear removal from office.

Much like a president can face impeachment by the U.S. House and then a Senate trial, a governor in South Carolina can be impeached by the state House and tried in the state Senate.

That has never happened in South Carolina -- or any state.

In 1871, Republican Gov. Robert Kingston Scott might have come the closest to impeachment and removal from office of any S.C. governor -- and, coincidentally, over the issue of a swollen state debt.

It was a corrupt time for S.C. government, and political payoffs were a common tool in getting legislation passed. The state debt was well over $5 million -- a staggering amount of money in 1871.

According to "South Carolina, A Short History," by David Duncan Wallace, an effort arose among government reformers to impeach Scott and state Treasurer Niles G. Parker for unlawfully issuing bonds and falsifying reports.

"The Governor bought off his pursuers with $48,645 drawn from the military fund," Duncan wrote.

Scott's ability to buy his way out of trouble prompted corruption fighter and future U.S. Sen. John J. "Honest John" Patterson to sadly report:

"There are five years good stealing in South Carolina."