The complaint, filed in Fresno County Superior Court, requests a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of a state law signed last week that compels election officials to place the controversial transportation tax measure onto the Nov. 3 ballot, bypassing the Fresno County Board of Supervisors decision Tuesday to place the measure on the March 7, 2028, ballot<\/a>.<\/p>\n At the heart of the complaint is an emergency state law, AB 1923<\/a>, that was passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last week \u2014 \u201ca statute unlike any other in the modern history of California election law,\u201d the lawsuit says.<\/p>\n The law, co-sponsored by Democratic lawmakers state Sen. Anna Caballero and Asm. Esmeralda Soria, requires any Fresno County initiative petition that has been certified<\/a> as sufficient by the Fresno County Registrar of Voters on or before July 8, 2026, to be submitted, without alteration, to the voters at the Nov. 3, 2026, statewide general election.<\/p>\n Fresno County has retained the Sacramento-based Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP, a firm experienced in political and election law litigation, to represent it in the lawsuit at a rate of $600 per hour, said County Spokesperson Sonja Dosti.<\/p>\n Fred Vanderhoof, former chairman of the Fresno County Republican Party, and insurance broker and local conservative leader, Mike De Manouel Jr., are also plaintiffs of the lawsuit.<\/p>\n Should the court weigh in on whether to block the measure from the ballot, it will have to be done quickly. The absolute deadline to appear on the Nov. 3 ballot is Sept. 8, Kus previously told The Bee. That is the date he needs to print ballots to send overseas and to military members.<\/p>\n When reached for comment Wednesday afternoon, Dyer, an official supporter of the countywide ballot measure initiative, said he had to be careful about what he says publicly about litigation.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ll have to seek representation like the other folks that are involved, and, you know, we\u2019ll go forward,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Supervisor Nathan Magsig said Thursday afternoon that the court needs to offer some clarity.<\/p>\n \u201cYou not only have ambiguity in the Better Roads measure, but also with AB 1923, that law that was passed by the legislature says that the measure is to be on the ballot in November,\u201d Magsig said. \u201cBut it also says that the normal processes which are found in the elections code need to be followed, too… So that has created some confusion and some questions that need to be answered, I think, by the court.\u201d<\/p>\n The lawsuit does not allege any misconduct against Kus, though he is named because the state law relates to his role as Fresno County Clerk Registrar of Voters and \u201cbecause the conflicting official constructions of AB 1923 held by the Board and by Respondent Kus present an actual controversy requiring judicial resolution.\u201d The complaint asks the judge for a writ of mandate ordering Kus to \u201cconform the performance of his official duties respecting the Initiative to the construction this Court adopts.\u201d<\/p>\n Kus said Wednesday afternoon he can not comment on potential or ongoing court cases. He previously told The Bee he might have to hire an attorney just for his office.<\/p>\n A spokesperson for the Attorney General\u2019s office confirmed it had been served with the lawsuit Wednesday afternoon.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are reviewing it and will respond as appropriate in court,\u201d the spokesperson said.<\/p>\n In a demand letter filed Monday to county officials, attorneys for the Better Road Safe Streets coalition urged county officials to follow the state law.<\/p>\n \u201cA review of the language of AB 1923 makes clear that it is directive and mandatory,\u201d the letter said.<\/p>\n Fight over the future of Measure C<\/p>\n The lawsuit is the latest twist in a prolonged fight over the future of Measure C, the half-cent sales tax<\/a> first passed in 1986 that supports transportation, roads, trails and public transportation across Fresno County.<\/p>\n The Measure C tax measure was renewed by voters in 2006, but a third renewal in 2022 was successfully blocked by a coalition of community groups<\/a> who wanted to see more spending on rural communities and green transportation, and less on highways in service of sprawl.<\/p>\n Those community groups are now part of the citizen-led renewal measure known as Better Road, Safe Streets. The citizen-lead measure, which qualified for the ballot after<\/a> county elections officials verified more than 21,900 signatures, was also supported by several Fresno County cities and mayors, including Fresno.<\/p>\n But another hurdle got in the way of the measure appearing on the ballot.<\/p>\n Last month, the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to conduct a study on the financial impacts of the \u201cBetter Roads, Safe Streets\u201d plan<\/a>. The 30-day study, presented to the board Tuesday, was submitted after the Aug. 7 deadline to place items on the November ballot, which would have delayed the ballot measure until at least March 2028.<\/p>\n That\u2019s when state legislators got involved last week and passed the law in question.<\/p>\n Conservative county and city leaders opposed to the measure called the state law \u201celection tampering<\/a>\u201d and said it undermines local elections. Proponents of the measure said the law was a way to overcome a \u201cdishonest\u201d procedural delay tactic<\/a> that interfered with people\u2019s right to vote on the measure<\/a>.<\/p>\n What the lawsuit argues<\/p>\n The lawsuit argues that the law gives \u201cspecial privilege\u201d to the proponents of a single initiative petition and is asking for the court to declare that AB 1923 is \u201cinvalid and unenforceable\u201d and that its urgency clause is void.<\/p>\n The complaint argues AB 1923 is an unconstitutional “special statute” that singles out only one of California\u2019s 58 counties.<\/p>\n \u201cExpiring local transportation taxes are a recurring, statewide phenomenon; the recital identifies a category, not a distinction,\u201d the lawsuit states. \u201cA legislative declaration that circumstances are unique, unaccompanied by any circumstance that is in fact distinctive, cannot transform a special law into a permissible one.\u201d<\/p>\n A special statute cannot stand where the Legislature has itself enacted a general law that is applicable to the subject, the complaint says.<\/p>\n Fresno Bee Reporter David Taub contributed to this report.<\/p>\n Related Stories from Fresno Bee<\/p>\n
![\"Profile](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Melissa_Montalvo_Headshot.jpeg\")