In the one chance both sides had to present their case about whether California legislators have the power to force a Fresno County transportation tax onto the November ballot, the judge paid particular attention to the supervisors’ choice to wait the full 30 days before certifying Measure S.

Now, Judge Jonathan Skiles said he will have his decision on Fresno County’s case against the state and against Measure S proponents on Monday before noon as he anticipates the losing party to “make a bee line to the Fifth Circuit” Court of Appeal.

“I’m going to try to give you as much time to get that done before the Sept. 3 deadline,” Skiles said as he dismissed the hearing Friday afternoon.

Do Legislators Have the Power to Clarify Law?

After a whirlwind week of answering legal claims and responding to those answers, attorneys for the county met in a packed courtroom against attorneys for the state and Measure S proponents.

And, as attorneys presented their cases, Skiles grilled the responses.

Attorney Brian Hildreth opened by saying that election code clearly gives supervisors the ability to call for a 30-day study.

It was that 30-day study that pushed Measure S past the Aug. 7 deadline to qualify for the November ballot, causing legislators to approve AB 1923, forcing it onto the ballot.

He said when election code was written, no exemptions were made for measures where the county is simply certifying an initiative for the ballot.

“If the legislators wanted to carve out tax measures, they could have done so, and they still can do so,” Hildreth said.

Skiles didn’t appear to buy that argument as he responded by asking if it’s reasonable to assume that the Legislature never anticipated the study being used in such a way.

He said that if that were the case, legislators should have the power to clarify the intent behind the law, and how they correct it shouldn’t matter.

“How they correct it… is not what would tip the constitutionality of the action,” Skiles said.

Skiles added to that argument by saying that county supervisors did not have to wait the full 30 days to approve the measure.

Skiles went so far as to insinuate the only reason for waiting the entire 30 days would be to keep the measure off the November ballot.

Measure S Stands for ‘Scam’: Bredefeld

Attorneys for the state and Measure S proponents explained to Skiles that the “hundreds of millions of dollars” of funds potentially lost spurred the Legislature to approve AB 1923.

Skiles touched on the urgency matter saying, regardless of the delay, Measure S would still go on the ballot.

“It is a timing question, correct?” Skiles said.

After the hearing adjourned, Fresno County Board Chair Garry Bredefeld said attorneys got the point across that the state’s action was unconstitutional.

“I hope that the judge rules in our favor because the board of supervisors followed election state law, and it wasn’t the board’s fault that this group didn’t get their signatures right,” Bredefeld said.

He said regardless of whether Measure S goes on the November ballot or the March 2028 ballot, supervisors would work to oppose it.

“Measure S stands for scam, and it’s a fraud on the taxpayers, they will not fix the roads, they want to get people out of their cars, riding buses, bikes, and scooters,” Bredefeld said.

Voters Should Have the Say: Celedon

Sandra Celedon, executive director of Building Healthy Communities, who worked on the Measure S process, said she appreciates the judge’s thoughtful questions.

“We’ve been steady in our position that ultimately it is the voters of Fresno County who should determine the future of transportation in our community,” Celedon said.