The State of California and the Better Roads, Safe Streets group submitted their arguments to Fresno County Judge Jonathan Skiles on Wednesday in the case to put the half-cent transportation sales tax on the November ballot. 

The state’s argument: The state argued in its filing that the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed on its merits and that Fresno County does not face irreparable harm if the Better Roads, Safe Streets tax – known as Measure S – appears on the November ballot. 

Per the state’s argument, the Legislature determined that Fresno County faces unique fiscal circumstances with the upcoming expiration of Measure C, necessitating Assembly Bill 1923 to force Measure S to be placed on the November ballot. 

The state pointed to two prior times where the Legislature directed counties to measures on the ballot: once in 2004 and another time in 1974. In 2004, the Legislature directed Bay Area counties to hold a special election to consider a toll increase on bridges. The 1974 directive involved an election to replace the board that oversees Bay Area Rapid Transit. 

Fresno County argued in its complaint that the Legislature specifically targeted the county even though Alameda County did the exact same thing by ordering a study on a ballot measure to raise the minimum wage. The state wrote in its argument that Alameda County does not face a fiscal crisis and that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors could pass the measure itself, since it is not a tax measure. 

The state also argues that AB 1923 is a proper urgency statute and does not substantially affect the duties of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and the Registrar of Voters. 

“In any case, AB 1923 does not ‘substantially affect’ the Board’s duty to submit a qualified initiative to voters if the Board cannot or does not choose to adopt it,” the complaint reads. “AB 1923 merely affects when that duty is performed (and only for one election), not what the duty is or even how or whether the duty is performed.” 

The state also argued that a preliminary injunction to keep Measure S off the November ballot deprives voters of their democratic rights. 

“An injunction deprives all voters in Fresno County of their democratic authority; denying the injunction merely ensures all Fresno County voters have a choice to address their impending fiscal situation,” the complaint reads. 

Better Roads, Safe Streets weighs in: The Better Roads, Safe Streets group argued in its filing that keeping Measure S off the November ballot “will be catastrophic.” 

“Blocking the voters from even considering it in November guarantees that Fresno residents will lose over $100 million for transportation, along with the ability to unlock matching state and federal funds.” 

The group argues that the current status quo is that Registrar of Voters James Kus has placed Measure S on the ballot, per the orders of AB 1923. An injunction from the court would go against the status quo, the group argues. 

“The Registrar has published the Initiative on the County’s website, along with the vote threshold required for passage, and set an August 27 deadline for submission of arguments to appear in the County Voter Information Guide,” the argument reads. “Indeed, according to the Registrar, reversing course to take the Initiative off the November ballot will require six days of his time, which is why the critical date for this action was advanced from September 9 to September 3, 2026.” 

The group also argues that AB 1923 unambiguously requires the initiative to be on the November ballot and that the bill is permissible urgency legislation. 

What we’re watching: Fresno County will file its response on Thursday, and all sides will return to court Friday afternoon for a hearing. 

Skiles will submit his ruling by Monday afternoon.