Apparently, Vos' definition of malfeasance includes disagreeing with him. Vos is referring to two things, one the fact that the recall took place in the district that existed before the gerrymander. The other is that the Democrats left the state to deprive the Republicans of the ability to vote on legislation (a controversial, if time-honored tactic in American politics). We can point to Washington State recall of 1981 for a surprising position on malfeasance (apparently it was a regulatory agency decision, not a judicial one). However, it seems to be a very broad definition of malfeasance that effectively would be the same as a non-standard.
"But as far as if Lehman should be recalled, Vos said, “I don’t believe in recalling someone just because he is a Democrat.” But at the same time Vos didn’t say he was entirely opposed to a possible recall, such as if Lehman doesn’t represent the wishes of the district or flees the state."
The Journal Times notes: "leaves open the possibility of a recall of Lehman if he doesn’t represent the wishes of his district. This is an expansion of acceptable recall criteria beyond the limited parameters of Joint Resolution 63. Furthermore, what constitutes “the wishes of his district”? Is Vos saying that because Senate District 21 is being redrawn into a much more conservative district that the recall election should be nullified? Wasn’t it Republicans and their supporters who railed against do-over elections? Is the GOP standard to allow “do-overs of do-overs” until they get the political results they want?"