New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo gave his resignation Tuesday. Or, formally, two weeks from Tuesday, for the detail-conscious who care to know.

The alerts from pop-ups and scrolls shouted “Cuomo Resigns Amid Scandals, Ending Decade-Long Run in Disgrace,” but in the end the timing means less than the outcome. It may as well have happened last week, after the New York governor’s pattern of sexual harassment had been baked in the hot sun of a state attorney general’s report and after his support had peeled away like old paint.

The “when” and “whether” surrounding the voluntary severance of a public servant from a position are often unclear — such people are reluctant to let go and sometimes right to resist — but the mismatch of power and personal integrity is rarely as clear as it grew to be understood in Cuomo’s case.

In saying that he didn’t realize the extent to which the lines he crossed “had been redrawn,” he essentially admitted that he acted toward women as he did because he believed he could.

That’s different only in tone from the vulgar words that led to calls for Donald Trump to drop out of the presidential race in 2016. No legitimate leader can act in a manner that holds half the population in disregard, we wrote then. We didn’t win that argument, but the argument hasn’t changed.

In light of the exhaustive report released Aug. 3 by the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, prominent political leaders and editorial boards around the country concluded that Cuomo should go.

It’s not always the case that a public official should resign — or be removed through an established process — just because that person is in the doghouse. Constituents should be circumspect about such outcomes. Elections are held on a regular schedule in the jurisdictions of this country, and despite assertions to the contrary or the doubts they aim to dredge up, the vote tallies are reliable. And despite the many examples to the contrary, voters do sometimes throw the bums out who deserve it, or who have simply overstayed their welcome. To be eager for early dismissal is, to at least some extent, to subvert that democratic process.

Also important is due process. Though the standards in the political arena are looser than they are for a finding of criminal guilt, there still ought to be care taken in rendering a judgment.

Most important, however, is that each situation is different and must be considered in its context.

Beyond those considerations, these questions:

— Is there a pattern of bad behavior, or a solitary example?

— Did the official materially violate the oath of office? (We believed this to be true regarding the second impeachment of President Trump. We did not take a position on the first Trump impeachment, though we did write in support of the due process that a legitimately handled Senate trial represents.)

— Did the official betray the essence of his or her responsibility to voters, or was the matter unrelated to the person’s formal duties?

— If the behavior is unrelated to formal duties, is it sufficient nonetheless to make the person’s judgment on official matters also suspect?

— Has the official acknowledged mistakes and demonstrated the ability to learn from them?

— Can the official be effective for constituents going forward? This includes having the support of those with whom the person works in office. This criterion was used in the call for U.S. Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota to resign following sexual misconduct allegations in 2017.

You’ll note that a great deal of subjectivity is possible in the answers. It should go without saying that a politician’s party affiliation is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is conduct that is disagreeable merely on ideological grounds. That, above all, is the stuff of elections.

Finally, we remind voters — and ourselves — never to make the mistake of assuming that such matters are easy, even though some are.

— Tribune News Service