Fresno Co. files lawsuit against State, Kus contesting transportation tax. Here’s what comes next.

Fresno County is asking for a judge to take action by Sep. 9 in its lawsuit against the State of California over Assembly Bill 1923 and the fight surrounding the Better Roads, Safe Streets half-cent transportation tax initiative. 

The county filed its lawsuit on Wednesday in the Fresno County Superior Court. The county was joined by former Fresno County Republican Party Chairman Fred Vanderhoof and businessman Mike Der Manouel Jr. as plaintiffs. 

Driving the news: The Fresno County Board of Supervisors voted on Tuesday to sue the state and the Better Roads, Safe Streets backers – which includes Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer and Clovis City Councilwoman Lynne Ashbeck – and Fresno County Clerk/Registrar of Voters James Kus over AB 1923. 

While the board passed a resolution placing the Better Roads, Safe Streets ballot on the March 2028 ballot, due to the Aug. 7 deadline to place initiatives on the November ballot already having passed, Kus told the board that he would place the initiative on the November ballot because of AB 1923. 

AB 1923 directs any Fresno County initiative that was certified by July 8 to be submitted to the November ballot. It also directs Kus and the Board of Supervisors to “perform all acts that they would otherwise perform to place a qualified initiative measure on the ballot.” 

Fresno County hired Sacramento-based law firm Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP to try the case. 

Targeting Fresno County: In the lawsuit, the county, Vanderhoof and Der Manouel Jr. argue that AB 1923 qualifies as a special statute, not a general one, meaning it violates the California Constitution. 

The lawsuit states that Article IV of the Constitution states that a “local or special statue is invalid in any case if a general statute can be made applicable.” Such a general statute already exists with Elections Code section 9118, which governs when and how a certified county initiative reaches the ballot, the lawsuit argues. 

“In a single sentence, the Legislature commanded that one initiative petition, in one county, certified by one county officer on or before one date chosen in hindsight, be placed on one specific ballot, overriding the deliberative process that the Elections Code guarantees to every county in California and that the Fresno County Board of Supervisors was lawfully engaged in when the Legislature impermissibly intervened,” the lawsuit reads. 

The lawsuit also points out that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors did the exact same things as Fresno County with a ballot initiative to raise the minimum wage to $30 per hour. The county ordered a 30 day report on Aug. 4, meaning the measure could not come back to the county to be placed on the ballot ahead of the Aug. 7 deadline. 

“The Legislature took no action with respect to Alameda County,” the lawsuit reads. “No bill was introduced, amended, or enacted to override the Alameda County Board of Supervisors’ exercise of the report option or to command placement of the Alameda measure on the November 2026 ballot. The Alameda measure’s certification date of July 23, 2026 falls outside the class defined by AB 1923’s July 8, 2026 trigger; the trigger captures the Fresno petition and excludes the factually identical Alameda petition certified fifteen days later.” 

No misconduct against Kus: The lawsuit says it does not allege any misconduct against Kus for saying he will place the Better Roads, Safe Streets measure on the November ballot, stating that the county and Kus have “each performed their duties according to their respective good faith readings of an ambiguous directive, and their readings conflict.” 

“No misconduct of any kind is alleged against Respondent Kus; he is named because complete relief respecting the ministerial acts AB 1923 addresses cannot be granted in his absence, and because the conflicting official constructions of AB 1923 held by the Board and by Respondent Kus present an actual controversy requiring judicial resolution,” the lawsuit reads. 

What we’re watching: The county has requested an expedited hearing with respect to the Sep. 9 deadline to print the November ballot that Kus is up against. 

The case was assigned to Judge Bob Whalen on Thursday. 

The court had not scheduled its first hearing as of early Thursday afternoon. 

The plaintiffs are requesting a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent Kus from printing the ballots with the Better Roads, Safe Streets initiative on Sep. 9. Ultimately, they are seeking a declaration that AB 1923 is invalid and that if the tax is approved in November, for the court to declare that the initiative was not submitted at the right election and will not take effect.