¿Ratificar a Petrou en el cargo?

I will vote Yes to elect all appellate judges on my ballot.  Voters are asked whether to elect currently-serving appellate court judges because these individuals already went through a thorough vetting process before the California Governor appointed them to their courts.  Candidate must submit 50-75 references who can attest to their professional ability, judicial temperament and personal character.  Then a Commission contacts hundreds more, and interviews both references and candidates, before making recommendations to the Governor.  (As an attorney, I have been interviewed regarding one candidate and asked to comment on many more).  After being appointed, Judges must run for election, uncontested, but also unable to campaign other than to promise to impartially administer justice according to the law.

Thus, the process is designed to ensure that only qualified professionals are appointed judges.  Judges should not be removed simply because some people may disagree with their decisions about what the law requires.  The only good reason to remove them from office would be unethical, corrupt or incompetent conduct.  To determine if that applies to a specific judges, it is possible to review the database of complaints on file with the Commission on Judicial Performance.  If a judge has been disciplined, that might suggest they should be removed.

Here, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, none of the appellate judges (or the two California Supreme Court justices) have been disciplined.  Therefore, I will vote to retain them.

We don't want judges to make decisions based on what voters want. We want them to follow the rule of law. Unless there's something glaringly bad about a judge (ex: criminal offense, sexual misconduct, etc.) I vote to retain seated judges

Pattern of narrowing prosecutorial tools and expanding post-conviction relief.