Fresno County Sues State and Own Elections Clerk to Block $7 Billion Citizen-Led Tax Measure

A common misconception about local elections is that county boards have the final say over what appears on your ballot. The reality is that state legislatures can override local officials, and citizen initiatives play by an entirely different set of rules. This dynamic is currently playing out in Central California, where the Fresno County Board of Supervisors has voted 3-2 to sue the State of California, the proponents of a citizen-led tax initiative, and their own local elections clerk, James Kus.[1][2]

The actionable takeaway for voters is that the fate of a $7 billion transportation tax measure, and the condition of local roads for the next 30 years, now rests in the hands of a judge, not the ballot box. The lawsuit aims to block the 'Better Roads, Safe Streets' measure from appearing before voters this November, arguing that state lawmakers unconstitutionally bypassed local authority.[1][3]

To understand how a county ends up suing its own registrar of voters, you have to look at the mechanics of the initiative itself. The proposal is a 30-year, half-cent sales tax designed to replace the expiring Measure C, which has funded regional infrastructure since 1986.[5][6]

Unlike previous iterations of the tax drafted by government agencies, this version is a citizen-led initiative. Backed by a coalition of community groups, business leaders, and environmental advocates, the plan directs 65 percent of its revenue to local street repairs and 25 percent to public transit. The coalition gathered over 32,000 signatures, successfully qualifying the measure for the ballot.[4][5]

Under standard election procedures, a county board performs the ministerial duty of placing a certified citizen initiative on the ballot. However, state election code also permits a county to request a 30-day impact study on a measure's potential effects before finalizing its placement.[1]

In mid-July, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors opted to order this study. The board majority cited concerns that the citizen-led tax measure was overly prescriptive in its spending mandates and contained vague language that could open the county to future litigation.[1][3]

Because of the tight election calendar, this 30-day delay effectively pushed the board's final approval past the state's August deadline for the November 2026 election. Consequently, the board's action meant the transportation tax would not face voters until the March 2028 primary election.[1][5]

The delay triggered an immediate response from the state legislature. Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria and State Senator Anna Caballero introduced Assembly Bill 1923, utilizing a legislative maneuver known as a 'gut-and-amend' process. They rewrote an existing distressed hospital loan bill into an election mandate specifically targeting Fresno County.[2][4]

The new legislation explicitly ordered the county to place any initiative certified by the registrar on or before July 8 onto the November 2026 ballot. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law as an urgency measure, allowing it to take effect immediately and overriding the county's delay.[2][4]

The state's intervention set the stage for the current litigation. Board Chair Garry Bredefeld and the conservative majority argued that AB 1923 is an unconstitutional attack on local control. They contend that the state is stripping the county of its lawful authority to govern its own election process and conduct due diligence on a massive tax proposal.[1][3]

By naming County Clerk James Kus in the lawsuit, the board is seeking a court order to prevent him from fulfilling the state mandate. Suing a county's own elections official weeks before a major election is a highly unusual legal strategy, designed to legally bind the clerk from printing the measure on the upcoming ballots while the broader constitutional fight plays out.[1]

Kus finds himself caught between conflicting legal directives. During a recent board meeting, the clerk noted that AB 1923 effectively orders his office to ignore the county's delayed timeline and follow the state's immediate placement mandate. He confirmed that his office would begin preparations to place the measure on the November ballot as required by the new state law.[1]

However, the logistical reality of ballot printing creates another hurdle. Without a formal resolution from the board providing the necessary ballot question language, Kus lacks the specific information required for the county voter registration guide. He warned the board that he would need to seek independent legal counsel if they refused to pass a resolution.[1]

The immediate future of the $7 billion tax remains entirely dependent on the courts. If the judiciary upholds AB 1923, voters will decide the fate of the transportation fund this November. If the county prevails and the state law is struck down, the measure will likely be delayed until 2028.[3][5]

A delay would leave local governments scrambling to find alternative funding sources when the current Measure C expires in June 2027. The city of Fresno has already prepared a backup municipal tax measure to cover its own infrastructure needs, though its deployment hinges on whether the countywide initiative survives this unprecedented legal challenge.[3][4]