The decision whether to recall Judge Aaron Persky is the most challenging on the ballot for Santa Clara County voters in the June 5 election. Strong arguments exist for a “yes” or “no” vote on whether to remove him from office for the lenient sentence he handed down in a sexual assault case that drew national attention.

The decision comes down to this: Voters need to stand up and make a statement on behalf of women and men about the seriousness of sexual assault. Persky’s sentence failed to do so to an extent that he never will again be able to serve as a respected, effective judge. He should be recalled.

It may not be fair to Persky, who is a decent man and an able judge. But neither was Persky’s six-month sentence in 2016 fair to the young woman who was sexually assaulted by Brock Turner. The Stanford swimmer attacked the intoxicated, unconscious victim outside a campus fraternity party and was released after three months for good behavior.

Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.

Persky bypassed the prosecution request for six years in prison for Turner. The judge also failed to take into account the woman’s moving statement before delivering the sentence. Her sense of justice never will be the same.

The argument that recalling Persky will strike a blow against judicial independence is not compelling. That ship already has sailed. The recall campaign and the surging MeToo movement have put judges across California on notice: Take sexual assault more seriously or risk being “Persky’d”.

While many in the judicial community fear the recall will cause them to be overly concerned with public opinion, they have a valid alternative: Work to change the recall law. It is the same sort of advice the judicial community gave recall proponents expressing outrage over Persky’s sentence.

California is one of only five states that allows voters to remove a judge who has not broken the law. Only four judges have been recalled since 1911 when recalls became legal in the state — one in San Francisco in 1913 and three others in Los Angeles in 1932.

It’s a legitimate question whether the recall law should stand as written. California would benefit over a statewide debate on the issue.

Meanwhile, proponents’ argument that Persky exhibited a pattern of leniency and bias is weak. Recall backers cherry-picked five of 64 sexual assault and domestic violence cases that the judge presided over. When the state Commission on Judicial Performance studied the Turner case and the other five cases in question, they found no evidence of judicial wrongdoing.

But opportunities such as the Turner case to alter longstanding cultural problems are rare. It’s imperative that Santa Clara County lead where Persky failed when given the opportunity. A comprehensive study by the Association of American Universities found that one in four women attending universities in this country will be sexually assaulted by the time they are seniors. One in six women are raped during their lives. These are staggering statistics.

The recall will make it safer for victims to come forward and encourage prosecutors to aggressively pursue cases. Santa Clara voters must send a clear message to judges that sexual assault is not acceptable and that punishment must be severe enough to serve as a deterrent.

“The fact that Brock was a star athlete at a prestigious university should not be seen as an entitlement to leniency,” his victim wrote to Persky, “but as an opportunity to send a strong cultural message that sexual assault is against the law regardless of social class.”

The judge didn’t heed the message. Voters should recall Persky.