A little late for this opinion.

I voted two weeks ago via mail (permanent absentee ballot) despite the fact that I can walk to my voting booth.

Perhaps you should consider adapting to today's voter behavior.

Just a thought...

I am also voting against the recall, the law should be decided by courts, not by Twitter. Meanwhile how did Stanford survive this scandal untarnished? They rejected a 4.0 local future-NBA player in Jeremy Lin and instead admitted a rapist.

It is important for a judge to be cognizant of the public’s opinion of her/his personal administration of justice, but ultimately, a judge must assess the facts of a case and apply impartial and unbiased interpretation of the laws, regardless of popular opinion or what Twitter has to say.

It is only when a judge exhibits corruption, gross corruption, or a pattern of misconduct that a public recall, which hasn’t occurred in California in approximately 86 years, is appropriate—none of these these requisites do not apply to Judge Persky. That's why I'm voting no on the recall.

Oops, I meant to say it is only when a judge exhibits corruption, gross incompetence, or a pattern of misconduct that a public recall, which hasn’t occurred in California in approximately 86 years, is appropriate—none of these requisites apply to Judge Persky. That's why I'm voting no on the recall.

The judge showed more concern for Brock’s welfare than that of the victim (and future victims). The first recall in the state of California was due to a judge that let a rapist go. So, there is precedence for this recall.

Against rape? Vote Yes.
Against pedophilia? Vote Yes.

Jeff Rosen's actions speak louder than his words. He disqualified Persky from presiding over the next sexual assault case that he would have heard after the Brock Turner case> Rosen issued a public statement that he "lacked confidence" that Persky could be fair in a case involving an unconscious victim. So Jeff Rosen would like the women of Santa Clara County to have to retain a judge for 4 more years that even Rosen didn't want to try a sexual assault case in front of. No thanks. Oh, and by the way Rosen's wife is a judge.

The fact that Rosen uses Emily Doe's name and words to endorse a campaign that has actively smeared her and victim-shamed her and Jeff Rosen has been silent as to that conduct by Jim McManis, LaDoris Cordell and others is unconscionable.

It is one thing to have the position that you oppose the recall. It is another to campaign actively for a campaign which has disgracefully smeared the victim.

Jeff Rosen does not deserve the trust or the votes of women. He has destroyed his hopes for statewide office by standing by Persky's victim-blaming and bashing campaign.

I admire Jeff Rosen. Despite the prospect of being next in line for attack by the Recall’s slander and misinformation campaign, Jeff Rosen had the courage to publicly proclaim his opposition to the recall. At the same time, Jeff shows heartfelt empathy for Emily Doe.

Vote NO recall.

Since AG Kamala Harris was running for US Senate, Rosen thought he might position himself to be appointed the next AG (Attorney General). Rosen sponsored a change in CA law which eliminated a valid distinction (always a generalization) concerning rape. But then Gov. Brown picked another politician to fill Harris' vacancy. So, sure, Rosen has little credibilty on this subject.

The case for opposing the recall has been clear from the start. The case for recalling has been based on over emotionally cherry picking of issues and using increasingly inflammatory language and lust for a scalp to hang on a pole then crow victory.
I just got back from voting No.

Yep, incredibly late.

Proposal: MV Voice should create an "elections" site, where relevant content for each section of the ballot. Then this sort of op-ed could be posted 3-weeks-ago and still be relevant.

Folks who vote early frequently say they do it to avoid being swamped by campaign information. In my opinion it also means you may not get all the information you would want. Make a choice! D.A. Rosen wrote this when it suited him, not when it might have suited those who choose to vote early.