Fresno County officials are pushing back against California Gov. Gavin Newsom, accusing him and state lawmakers of overreaching their authority after Newsom signed legislation compelling the county to place a controversial road tax measure on the November ballot. The governor signed Assembly Bill 1923, which requires Fresno County to include the "Better Roads, Safe Streets" initiative on the ballot.
The dispute arose after three Fresno County supervisors voted to order a 30-day review of the citizen-backed measure, a move they asserted was permitted under state election law. Critics, however, accused the supervisors of using the review process to prevent the initiative from appearing on the November ballot.
Fresno County Board Chairman Garry Bredefeld stated the issue extends beyond the proposed tax, asserting it is about local control. "This is bigger than one road tax," Bredefeld said. "This is about whether Fresno County governs itself or whether political power and Sacramento connections can be used to overrule us whenever local voters and their representatives refuse to fall in line." He argued that the law effectively allows the state to dictate how Fresno County conducts its local elections, turning the county into a "ward of the state."
The "Better Roads, Safe Streets" initiative is a proposed half-cent sales tax intended to fund roads and transportation projects, designed to take effect after the existing Measure C tax expires in June 2027. A key distinction is that the initiative was citizen-sponsored, not proposed by the county government.
Under current California court rulings, citizen-sponsored special taxes can pass with a simple majority, whereas special taxes placed on the ballot by local governments generally require a two-thirds approval. This difference is significant because Proposition 43, which would raise the threshold for citizen-sponsored special taxes to two-thirds approval starting in 2027, will also be on the November ballot. A delay in the Fresno measure's vote until 2028, should it fail in November, could make its passage substantially more difficult.
Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria and State Sen. Anna Caballero supported AB 1923, accusing Fresno supervisors of delaying the measure through their review process. Soria called the legislation "a win for the democratic process, and it's a win for voting rights."
The legislative maneuver itself was unusual, as AB 1923 originally pertained to California’s Distressed Hospital Loan Program before its contents were replaced with the election mandate for Fresno County. Newsom then signed the urgency measure.
Bredefeld indicated that the county is considering legal action against the state. "If we have to sue, we're going to sue," he stated. "That’s my intention." Fresno County has reportedly hired an election-law specialist to advise the supervisors on the matter. The county chairman contends that AB 1923 may violate California's constitutional restrictions on laws that target a single county, though the bill cites Fresno County’s "unique fiscal circumstances" as justification.
The proposed tax is now slated for the November ballot unless Fresno County obtains a court order to halt the state's intervention.