What's at stake?
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors will look to the court to help them stop the Better Roads, Safe Streets tax proposal from appearing on the November 2026 ballot.
They'll be suing the State of California, local elections clerk James Kus, and the proposal's four proponents, which include Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer and Clovis City Councilmember Lynne Ashbeck.
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted to pursue litigation against the State of California, the proponents of the “Better Roads, Safe Streets” transportation tax initiative, and their own local elections clerk, setting up a contentious legal battle between a host of elected officials across all levels of state government.
The announcement comes in the wake of the implementation of AB 1923, a bill that was quickly pushed through the state legislature and signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom last week in an effort to qualify the Better Roads initiative for the November election.
The board’s decision to sue, which came in a split 3-2 vote that fell along ideological lines, came just days after the signing of AB 1923.
James Kus, the Fresno County Clerk and Registrar of Voters, is among the party of six being sued, alongside the state and ballot proponents Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer, Clovis City Councilmember Lynne Ashbeck, Veronica Garibay, a local community advocate, and Joan Eaton, a retired businesswoman.
It’s not clear what the precedent is for a local government to sue their own local elections official, especially so close to the next election.
The county’s legal counsel typically represents county workers, but they’ll be representing the board of supervisors in this case, not Kus. A Fresno County spokesperson told Fresnoland that the county’s legal counsel will assist Kus in obtaining separate representation.
Kus declined to comment for this story.
Dyer told Fresnoland in a statement that the county’s decision to sue a group that includes him “definitely complicates an already convoluted issue.”
“In spite of this, I remain committed to finding a long-term funding mechanism to ensure our neighborhood streets are paved and public transportation services remain intact,” Dyer said.
The other three ballot proponents did not respond to Fresnoland’s requests for comment for this story.
Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria, who alongside state Sen. Anna Caballero authored AB 1923, issued a statement on Tuesday through social media framing the board’s move as another attempt “to circumvent the will of the voters.”
Supervisors and Kus will go their own way
Tuesday’s meeting followed up on a controversial request by the board last month for a study on the Better Roads proposal.
At the July meeting, a board majority said they felt the study was necessary since the initiative seemed too prescriptive as to what the county can do with the money that would be accrued by the proposed tax, and included language that was too vague, potentially opening up the county to litigation.
The study delivered to the board on Tuesday was conducted by VRPA Technologies Inc., a consultant the county holds on retainer, but which is also linked to a rival group opposing the Better Roads initiative. The study, a 500-page document, seemed to at least partially corroborate the board majority’s fears.
Board Chair Garry Bredefeld, a Republican who has consistently opposed the initiative, said that the county has done nothing wrong leading up to Tuesday’s meeting.
“We have a responsibility to make sure that when they vote on a 30-year, $7 billion tax measure, that they have all the information that they need,” Bredefeld said.
The county is legally allowed to request a study on ballot proposals. However, Better Roads’ proponents have been crying foul play by the board, since the supervisors voted to request the study with the knowledge that it would very likely not be completed in time to qualify the ballot proposal for the November election.
“This was never about an economic study,” Soria said in her statement released Tuesday. “This was about predetermining the outcome of the successor Measure C.”
The board’s request led a group of Fresno County mayors and the ballot initiative’s proponents to reach out to Soria and Caballero, asking them to help find a way to circumvent the board and still get the Better Roads measure qualified for the November ballot.
The solution was to gut-and-amend AB 1923, a bill that was initially meant to provide a financial lifeline to distressed hospitals. News of the effort came with a quick response by the county, who pledged to sue the state if they approved the legislation.
Language on AB 1923 seems to require the board to carry out their ministerial duty to place the Better Roads measure on the November ballot, but the supervisors disagreed.
The supervisors drew special attention to language in AB 1923, which they say contradicts both its own intent and state election law. Specifically, they focused on language that asks the board to “perform all acts that they would otherwise perform to place a qualified initiative measure on the ballot.”
The board majority said that line in the bill allows them to conduct business as usual, which is to place the Better Roads measure on the March 2028 ballot since Tuesday’s meeting is past the deadline to qualify proposals for this year’s election.
“I can appreciate the legislature trying to solve a problem. But what they’ve done is they’ve actually created many, many more problems for me,” said Supervisor Nathan Magsig, a Republican, who will likely leave the board at the end of the year if his bid for a seat in the state legislature proves successful.
Still, Kus said at Tuesday’s meeting that his office, under the direction of the AB 1923, will begin work to place the Better Roads ballot proposal on the November 2026 ballot. That’s because the bill also includes language that can be interpreted as automatically qualifying the measure for the November ballot.
The county’s lawsuit could presumably lead to a court order stopping Kus from carrying out AB 1923’s mandate.
Luis Chavez, who is also the board vice chair, voted against pursuing litigation, alongside Supervisor Brian Pacheco.
“I voted against using taxpayers dollars to sue our county clerk, the state of California and our own citizens!,” Chavez said in the statement to Fresnoland. “AB 1293 was very direct and clear about what needed to happen- the roads measure initiative should be on the ballot for November 2026. We should always remember that we work for the people, not the other way around. We should never be afraid of letting the people vote!”
The lawsuit will likely continue to cultivate a sense of confusion and frustration among local residents and elected officials, who are struggling with how to prepare for a life without Measure C, the 40-year-old countywide transportation tax that will expire next summer.
On Monday, Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer talked to local media about his decision last week to place the city’s proposed general tax on the November ballot. Although that move may potentially place two transportation tax measures on the ballot in November, Dyer said the move is a contingency in case the Better Roads measure does not qualify for the November ballot.
The City of Fresno announced Tuesday that they would be holding a special Fresno City Council meeting on Wednesday afternoon to discuss and contemplate withdrawing their general tax proposal from the ballot.
It is not clear if this meeting was planned before or after the county announced their plans for litigation, which names Dyer as a defendant. Fresno City Councilmember Miguel Arias did not directly answer the question when asked, but instead said that the city has a responsibility to address city residents’ concerns.
“The latest shenanigans (by the board of supervisors) make no difference to me,” Arias said.
Though most of the lawsuit’s defendants did not immediately answer requests for comment for this story, legal actions are expected quickly as both sides publicly project strength, while they also scramble behind the scenes for political leverage on the matter.
It is also not immediately clear if California Attorney General Rob Bonta has been asked to step in to handle this matter for the state. Bonta’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on this story.
