The next Fresno County District Attorney and Sheriff race will remain in 2028, after an appellate court refused to hear the case on Wednesday.

Last month, Fresno County Superior Court Judge D. Tyler Tharpe sided with the state in its lawsuit against Fresno County over when the next election date should be 2026 or 2028.

A new state law moved the dates — traditionally held the same year as election for governor — to the same year as a presidential election. The goal was to increase voter turnout for two important offices. Sheriffs and district attorneys elected in 2022 would receive a one-time only six-year term.

In 2024, Fresno County voters decided to move the date back to its regular cycle. The state sued.

Tharpe ruled that the voter initiative, Measure A, conflicted with state law. The county appealed the decision to the Fifth District Court of Appeal.

“The ‘Petition for Writ of Mandate,’ filed on June 17, 2025, is denied. Likewise, the request for a stay of enforcement of the superior court’s June 2, 2025 order is denied,” wrote Assistant Presiding Judge Bert Levy, in a one-page, two-sentence ruling.

Levy was joined by Kathleen Meehan and Thomas DeSantos in the brief ruling. Levy was appointed by former-Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican. Meehan and DeSantos were appointed by former-Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat.

The decision means that DA Lisa Smittcamp and Sheriff John Zanoni will now serve terms through 2028.

County, State Reaction

“We are disappointed with the result,” said Interim Fresno County Counsel Peter Wall, who argued the case for the county.

The county could appeal to the state Supreme Court, but that may not happen.

“I do not plan on appealing the ruling. It’s time to move on. We have important issues to deal with,” Fresno County Supervisor Garry Bredefeld said.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta repeated his comment after the state won a ruling in Superior Court.

“There is nothing more fundamental to American democracy than the right to vote and make your voice heard,” Bonta said. “Measure A threatened to undermine that fundamental right, and we’re pleased with the appellate court’s decision leaving in place a prior order invalidating Measure A.”