Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

Okay. Committee will come to order. Good afternoon, everyone. We have one item on our agenda today. Assembly Bill 1923 by Assemblymember Soria who was joined by Senator Caballero. Let's establish a quorum.

[Quorom]

Okay. We have a quorum. Assemblymember welcome. You may present AB 1923.

Thank you, Chair, and members. AB 1923 is a simple but critically important measure that will ensure the Fresno County Transportation Improvement Act appears on the November 2026 general election ballot, giving Fresno County voters the opportunity to decide the future of transportation funding in our community.

Since 1986, voter approved Measure C has provided a stable source of funding for roads, highways, local streets, sidewalks, public transit, and other critical transportation infrastructure throughout Fresno County.

That funding expires in July 2027 if voters do not have the opportunity to weigh in this November on a successor measure. Today, the Fresno County Transportation Improvement Act is the only citizen initiative that has gathered the legally required signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Despite meeting every legal requirement to qualify, the initiative is at risk of missing the November ballot because of the timing of a county ordered study. It was three Fresno County supervisors that decided to manipulate an election law technicality to subvert the will of 32,000 signatories and deny over half a million registered voters their right to vote on the local initiative in the upcoming November election.

Opponents will claim that this bill undermines, local control. That's what you will hear. I respectfully disagree. As a former city council member, I deeply value local control but local control does not belong exclusively to local elected officials.

It also belongs to the people. Nothing in AB 1923 takes authority away from Fresno County. The study still proceeds, and we welcome the study. The board may still review the study and discuss its findings, and nothing in this bill prevents the Board of Supervisors from calling a special meeting and placing this initiative on the ballot themselves.

If they choose to do that, this legislation would not be necessary. What this bill does is ensures that a procedural issue does not prevent Fresno County voters from exercising their right to vote on a qualified citizen initiative this November.

As Chair Pellerin noted earlier this morning at in the Assembly Elections Committee, because the initiative is a local tax measure, the county's role is simply ministerial. The county's role is simply ministerial. The study was intended to inform elected officials and the public and not a mechanism to prevent a qualified initiative from reaching the ballot.

AB 1923 simply preserves the opportunity for the voters to make the final decision this November. And if anyone questions whether this respects local control, I would point to the board to the broad coalition standing behind this piece of legislation. The bill is, in fact, supported by 11 mayors from across Fresno County representing communities both small and large, Republicans and Democrats alike, along with dozens of City Council members in Fresno County. Those are local elected officials. They too know their communities.

And they are asking and they are asking for one thing from us. Let the people vote. Joining me today in support of AB 1923, we have Mayor of the City of Kerman, Maria Pacheco, and Mayor of the City of Mendota, Victor Martinez. And I am so proud to also be working alongside, my Senator, Anna Caballero, who will also present her remarks.

Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. As you heard, Measure C is the original tax measure and it's Fresno's County's long standing local transportation tax. And for decades, this particular tax generated millions of dollars necessary to match state and federal funds in order to bring the tax dollars to the to the county and make the road improvements that are so necessary.

Today, Measure C funds are set to expire as was, articulated by the Assemblymember. And in response, thousands of Fresno County residents came together to qualify a citizen led initiative to place a successor measure before the voters.

And that's really critically important to understand is it was people from all over the county of Fresno that came together to make this initiative, to put it into print and to make sure that it covered and created revenues to improve the transportation opportunities for residents all over the county. And so the proposal shifts the focus towards the priorities identified by residents, quite frankly.

More than 32,000 people signed the petition in support of the measure from all over the county, and the and it satisfied the number of signatures required and so was certified by the registrar of voters.

Now, what's important to understand is that the county has the opportunity to ask for information in a report, and they have up to 30 days to decide whether that report should be written. The statute does not say you need to take 35 days.

It says you can take up to 35 days. Well, when they ordered the report to take the full 30 days I'm sorry. Did I say 30, 35 days? That put it behind the eight ball and made it ineligible to to be able to meet the deadline for the for the November 2026 ballot. And so that's why we're here today is that we have a measure that is qualified as the Assemblymember articulated, the county can still get their report.

The only thing this bill does is say, that it should be placed on the ballot this November 2026. And with that, I'll let our witnesses appear. And I wanna thank all the people from Fresno County that showed up here to today on very little notice. Really appreciate their participation. And these are the individuals that were so engaged in discussing what kind of revenue split 0of this ballot measure is appropriate for all the small communities in Fresno.

And, and they were the signature gatherers and the people who signed the petitions. And so thank you to everybody that's here, including the mayors who have have been integrally involved in this ballot measure. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you very much. We have, I believe two witnesses. Yes. You may come forward. You can sit at the table and Welcome.

And you'll each have two minutes and you can go in whichever order you prefer.

Hello, Chair and members of the elections committee. My name is Maria Pacheco, and I serve as the Mayor of the City of Kerman. When we talk about better roads and safe streets, it's easy to focus on miles of pavement or dollars invested. But for the people I represent, transportation is about opportunity. In Kerman and throughout Western Fresno County, many of our residents don't have the luxury of living close to where they work, study, or receive medical care.

Reliable transportation is what connects a student to a college classroom, a parent to a good paying job, and a senior to a doctor's appointment. Several years ago, our community partnered to create a transportation program that allows students to ride public transportation to Fresno City College.

That program has changed lives. It has opened the door to higher education for students who otherwise could not afford the cost of commuting or owning a vehicle. Similar transportation services help students from other rural communities across Fresno County reach college and build a better future.

If voters are not allowed to have their voices heard in November on the better roads safer streets initiative, those opportunities are put at risk. We are not simply talking about delaying construction projects. We are talking about limiting educational access, reducing mobility for working families, and making it harder for rural residents to participate in the economy.

If voters are denied the opportunity to decide the future of continuing investments in their communities, current planning documents note a significant loss in local transportation funding beginning in 2027, affecting roads, transit, and the county's ability to leverage additional state and federal transportation dollars. This is about fairness.

We spend so much of our time educating our constituents on the importance of voting and engaging with their local elected officials and empowering them to use their voices. More than 32,000 Fresno County residents, 11 mayors, and 30 council members in Fresno County signed a petition asking that the citizen led initiative be placed before the voters this November.

AB 1923 simply preserves their opportunity to decide its future at the ballot box after a procedural delay threatened to push the measure beyond the November election. Let the people have their voices heard and not silenced. As someone who has spent her entire life in rural Fresno County, I know what it means to wait years for infrastructure that larger communities often take for granted.

Our residents are not asking for sub for special treatment. They are simply asking for the chance to vote and to invest in safer roads, stronger transit, and a greater opportunity for the next generation. This bill simply puts the power to vote in the hands of the people where it belongs. That is local control. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1923.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chair and members.

Turn on your mic.

There you go. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Victor Martinez, and I am the Mayor of the City of Mendota, a small rural community of about 12,000 people in Western Fresno County, also serve as Chairman for the Fresno Council of Governments. Mendota is an agriculture communities like Mendota. We have a continuing need for ongoing transportation investments to keep our streets in good repair and make sure our residents are safe during the long commutes that are a fact of life in the Central Valley.

For 40 years, Measure C, 0.5¢ transportation sales tax has paid this, played this vital role. This money not only directly funds critical projects, it also serves as the matching funds needed to compete for state and federal transportation grants. As a disadvantaged community, predominantly farm workers, we would not be able to raise these matching funds ourselves without Measure C. And so we will be cut off from most sources of road safety funding.

For this reason, I was I'm proud to support Measure C successor initiative, the Fresno County Transportation Improvement Act.

As it collected the signatures necessary to get on the November ballot, more than 32,000 people signed the petition, and all we're asking is to allow people to decide in November. But now that the Board of Supervisors have weaponized procedural delays to keep this initiative off the November ballot, communities like Mendota are facing a road safety crisis. This funding is not a luxury, not something that we would just be nice for us to have.

This is a question of light and death for many people, including myself when I was 17 years old as a cancer patient with leukemia going to get treatment at the Valley Children's Hospital, utilizing the Fresno County Transportation Services. And that's the reality for many of our constituents that don't have the right because their specialties are not in our rural communities.

The specialties are in the big hospitals. This is a question of life and death in Measure C is allowed to lapse as our roads will deteriorate. A needed safety improvements will be dangerous delay. There will be no more money. Proponents of the opposition will claim that there is more money past 2027.

There will be no more money. Our cities will not be receiving more money. That is why I am proud to support AB 1923, 1 of the 11 mayors, and thank Assemblywomen Soria and Senator Caballero for altering the measure. This bill does not decide the outcome of the initiative. It respects the will of the people, more than 32,000 signatures.

Thank you, and I respectfully ask the committee to please support AB 1923.

Thank you very much. Okay. We will now go to additional public comments at the microphone here. So you can line up if you'd like to express support. And if you could, just simply state your name, and your affiliation, if any, and that you support, such as those pieces of information.

Okay. Thank you.

My name is Alma Beltran. I'm the Mayor for the City of Parlier, and I'm in full support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is, Gilbert Garcia. I'm Mayor for the City of Orange Cove, and I fully support AB 1923. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Orlando Rodriguez, an organizer with Local 99 Carpenters Union. We fully support this.

Good evening. My name is Pallemon Frauso, and I am a field representative with the North Coast Carpenters. And I am strong supporting this bill. Thank you.

Brian Weinberger with NextGen California supporting AB 1923.

Chair and committee, Don Wilcox with the California Conference of Carpenters in support of this important measure. Thank you.

Hello. My name is, Fredo Molina, and I'm the, President of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1027. And I rise in support of this bill and representing, 671 transit workers in the Central Valley. Thank you.

Hello. Doctor Amber Krell. I'm a member of the Fresno Chapter of the California Faculty Association and strong support of AB 1923. Thank you.

Hi. Mister Chair and members of the committee, Ashley Swearingen with the Central Valley Community Foundation, resident of Fresno, California, very supportive of this bill and grateful to our leader, Assemblymember Soria and Senator Caballero. Thank you.

[speaking spanish]

I'm Sue Hammond. I'm a care provider with SEIU 2015, and I live in Clovis, California, Fresno County, and I am very highly supportive of AB1923.

[speaking spanish]

Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. My name is Genoveva Islas, and I am the Board President of Fresno Unified School District and also the Executive Director of Cultiva La Salud, and I rise to give my support to AB 1923. I also want to register support on behalf of Fresno Unified School District and also the Fresno Teachers Association.

My name is Juan Romero, a youth intern at Fresno Building Healthy Communities. I'm a Fresno resident and I urge you to vote yes.

My name is Asel Valdez, an intern at Fresno Building Healthy Communities. I'm also a resident in Fresno County, and I also urge you to vote yes.

My name is Genevieve Aguilar, and I'm a Fresno resident, and I urge you to vote yes.

My name is Jasmine Cisneros, and I'm a resident at Fresno and I urge you to vote yes.

Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Juliana Bejar. I'm a Fresno resident, and I urge you to vote yes.

My name is [Inaudible]. I am a resident of Fresno County, and I urge you to vote yes on this bill.

[speaking spanish].

[speaking spanish].

How do I put this? Okay. My name is Aileen, and I came to support to I came from Fresno to support AB 1923 because my mom and everybody needs transport. Thank you.

My name is Esmeralda. I came from Fresno. I came to support AB 1923. Thank you.

I'm from Fresno County. My name is [inaudible], and I support the measure. And I help other organizations and they help us too, so we help each other out. That's all. Bye.

My name is Rosa Mariana. I'm a Fresno resident, and I urge you to vote yes on this bill.

My name is John. I'm a Fresno resident, and I urge you to vote yes.

Good afternoon. My name is Andy Levine. I'm a member of the Fresno Unified School Board here in support of AB 1923.

Also here to register support on behalf of the following organizations, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, Faith in the Valley, Mothers Helping Mothers, climate citizens lobby of Fresno, the Central Valley Partnership, State Center Federation of Teachers, Every Neighborhood Partnership, California Environmental Voters, Jakara Movement, the Children's Movement of Fresno, Planned Parenthood, Advocates Marmonte, Friends of Kalwa, and the Central Labor Council. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Oscar. I'm staff with SEIU 2015. We represent caregivers all across Fresno County, and we are in support of Assembly Bill 1923.

Hello to everyone. My name is Jonas Palos. I'm visually impaired of twenty years. I'm what you call the transit dependent. I can't get around for my doctor's appointment.

I suffer from PTSD, so I need the bus. That's how I get around. I also represent all the veterans in Fresno County. Thank you for having me. And I'm in support of AB 1923 because our veterans received a free ride to go to their treatment at the VA.

So it's crucial for our veterans. It's a life and death situation. 22 a day suicide. So they have severe issues. Thank you.

Miguel Arias, Fresno City Council. Our City voted unanimously to support this ballot initiative on the November ballot. We joined 10 other cities in the county representing 80% of the population in the County of Fresno, and our city is scheduled to lose $368,000,000 if we're not allowed to vote for an extension of this measure as all our local match money would go away and we would have to turn over $368,000,000 in state and federal funds that require local match.

So please help us avoid a massive layoff and disruption to local transportation systems.

Good afternoon. Sandra Celedon with Fresno Building Healthy Communities, and we are in support of AB 1928. I'd also like to register the support of Community Justice Center, Climate Plan, California Bicycle Coalition, Live Again Fresno, United San Joaquin, and Fresno Interfaith Climate Alliance. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Ada. I am a student who uses public transportation for school as well as to get to work, and I strongly support AB 1923.

Hi. My name is Osvaldo, and I'm a Fresno resident. And I use the bus a lot for school and, like, my medical reasons. So I support AB 1923.

How y'all doing? My name is Amber Perry. I'm the Treasurer of Amalgamated Transit Union. We cover about 665 drivers in the City of Fresno. Before I was a treasurer and represented these people, I was a bus rider. So I'm in support of this, and I really hope you guys could help us get this through. Appreciate you.

Hello, everyone. My name is Cynthia Molina. I'm a Fresno County resident. I'm here to support AB 1923.

My name is Miguel Gallo. I'm vice president of ATU 1027, and I'm here to support AB 1923.

Hi. My name is Eric Williams, and I'm an Executive Board Member with ATU 1027, and I fully support AB 1923.

Good afternoon, Chair members. Mari Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support.

Good afternoon. My name is [inaudible]. I'm a director at the Youth Leadership Institute. I live in Fresno County, and I am in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Yvette Ramirez with the Youth Leadership Institute, a resident of Fresno County, and I support AB 1923.

My name is Jose Perez, and I'm a resident in Fresno County. And why I support AB 1923 is because I use the bus to or any public transportation to get to work. Thanks.

Hello. My name is Sarah, and I'm a resident of Fresno, and I urge you guys to vote yes.

My name is Nico Montano. I'm a resident of Fresno County, and I urge you to vote yes.

My name is Ariana Contreras. I'm a resident of Fresno County, and I urge you to vote yes.

My name is Chanel Cabrera. I'm a resident in Fresno County, and I urge you guys to vote yes.

My name is [inaudible]. I am the SEIU 1025 Executive Board Member, and I urge you to vote yes. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Gloria. I'm with SEIU, and I urge you guys to vote yes on AB 1923.

Hi. Mariana Ramirez. [speaking spanish].

[speaking spanish].

[speaking spanish]

Good afternoon. My name is Rev. Simon Biasell. I serve at the Big Red Church, United Church of Christ in the beautiful historic Fresno High neighborhood, and I fully support this bill.

Hi. My name is Guadalupe Damaso. I'm a resident of Fresno County, and I'm a Fresno State student that regularly uses the bus with the public bus. I ask you guys to support AB 1923.

[speaking spanish]

[speaking spanish]

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Anna Muah. I'm a resident of Fresno County, a Sunnyside student, and also with the Youth Leadership Institute, and I fully support AB 1923.

Good afternoon. Veronica Garibay. I'm a a voter and taCxpayer in the ity of Selma in Fresno County and also with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability and Strong Support. I'd also like to register support from Hmong Innovative Politics, Move California, Safe to School, Public Advocates, Fresno City Employee Association, and Sierra Club California. I'm also available to help answer any technical questions that the committee may have.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Yadera Torres. I am a resident of Fresno County, and I urge you guys to please vote yes.

My name is Brian. I'm a resident in Fresno County, and I urge you guys to vote yes and to support on the bill.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Ril, and I'm a resident from Fresno. And I urge you guys to vote yes on this bill because as young as I can remember, I remember my family relied on this transit system, and I can't wait to see what the bill would do, with our transit system. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Jim Grant, member of the Saint Paul Catholic Newman Center. I'm a voter and a supporter of this measure. I urge you to support democracy and to vote for our measure today. Thank you.

[speaking spanish]

Hello. Angelica Bishop, resident of Fresno County, a strong supporter of this bill.

Great. Thank you. Is there any additional support?

Okay. Seeing none, we'll now move to opposition.

For the opposition witnesses, thank you.

We have two.

And again, you'll each have two minutes and you can decide, who goes first.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Paul Yoder on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors in respectful opposition. Wanna register opposition for the Fresno Farm Bureau, the Fresno Area Hispanic Foundation, the Fresno Madera Kings Tulare Trades Council, the AFL CIO, and I believe CSAC will join us here expressing concerns in a little while. Very quickly, you're being asked to take extraordinary action. This law has been on the book since 1987.

This is the first attempt as your analysis states, to try to amend it at all. The author isn't trying to propose the law as it applies statewide. She's trying to propose something that would affect Fresno County this year. That's what's going on right now. I appreciate the Senate analysis saying how extraordinary this would be.

But is it extraordinary? There's still time. This tax is gonna run until July of next year. The money collected can actually be spent after July. There's time for a local compromise.

The situation is so fluid members. I cannot I'm willing to speak to you individually about it, but the situation is so fluid and the fact that you'd be asked to send this to the Governor by tomorrow would be a mistake. Trust me. Very, very quickly and I'll hand it over here to Former Supervisor Perea. There probably will be litigation.

The board had a press conference this morning. I don't think that's the board's first choice. But when I say the situation is fluid, I mean it. And that's one point I wanna make. That will have the effect materially of delaying things just in and of itself.

And again, that's not something the board takes lightly. Last thing, on the thirty day study, that's an important thing. The things that would be examined in that study relate to all of the mandates proposed and enacted by the legislature. All of the different considerations that the county has to, has to take into account. That's what the study would be about.

And as you see in the letter from organized labor in the valley, the Building and Construction Trades, not my words, theirs. There are things that need to be examined. There this initiative respectfully is wanting in many respects, and there are things or implications for the county and its residents that need to be examined in in conclusion.

The only reason, we are all here in fact, is because the signature gathering process was late and wasn't didn't go according to accepted state standards. Invalid signatures were many.

It failed the sample process. Every single signature had to be verified. The board acted it's very important. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors acted at the first Tuesday after every signature was verified and after this had in fact qualified. There was no delay.

They acted the next Tuesday. That's why we're here. Because the proponents of this initiative did not file sooner. If they had, we none of us would be here right now. I respectfully urge a no vote.

Happy to talk to any of the members individually. Let me hand it over to Henry Perea.

Mister chairman, member of the committee, thank you for having me here today. I've served on the Fresno City Council many years ago as well as 12 years on the board of supervisors. So I just find it very, very ironic to be sitting here before you today when I mean, there probably isn't a thing that, folks have said where, I think we all would agree, we need transportation funds in our community like every other community in this state.

I think the question is, what is the right mix?

What is the right plan to put before the voters? I think it's already been said, Measure C has been around for 40 years. The intent and the question of the voters forty years ago was we are going to build you a freeway system that we didn't have at the time. And as a result, promises made, promises kept. Freeway 41 was built, 16841 and we have a system.

Fast forward, and I think everybody in this room would agree. We're done building freeways. Now it's how do we come more into our neighborhoods to fix our neighborhoods, fix our arterials that need to be fixed, expand our arterials or streets that require expansion because of traffic flow and or safety issues. And of course, maintaining our very vital transportation system for people. Nobody disagrees on any of those principles.

I mean and I think the order that we have in California is you all have created a process for every county to function within those rules. I mean, just today, I'm sure you all read Alameda County, same issue. Different issue, but same process. The Board of Supervisors move forward initiative dealing with minimum wage. Okay.

Are they gonna be before you all asking the law to be changed now based on what happens here today? I hope not. Because I think I think the key, the key here is you have a process that have defined and every county and or city has to respect. Now I know there there's been conversations saying, well, motives. What were people thinking?

What's the real agenda and how they voted? Hey. Having been a politician, I get that right. Sometimes people question your reasons or your purposes for why you do what you do. But the fact is you represent people, and you're gonna make the best decision you can based on the information that you have.

I'm not gonna second guess the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, and the state legislature shouldn't either. They made a decision. And I think Paul made a good point, and I just want wanna share that with you. I mean like a lot of folks have said, Measure C has been around for 40 years. We know it's gonna expire in, 06/30/2027.

There's a plan behind it. Money stops being collected on that date. However, construction, whatever projects were in the are in the pipeline for that money will continue through probably 29. So the work won't the work's not gonna stop. The question is, what do you have to replace it if you're gonna replace it?

Because the voters met our needs. We said, give us 0.5¢ for forty years, and we'll build you a freeway system. They gave it to us. We built it. It's over.

Now we're talking about a new tax. And make no mistake, this is a new tax that's being proposed in Fresno County because that's over. Now we're saying, let's do let's revision how we deliver bus services in Fresno County and how we deliver transportation service, how we fix our neighborhoods. That's where the disagreement is. Okay?

And folks are coming up here asking you to substitute now your judgment for ours. I mean, it belongs in in in the local community. Now you you also talk about the statute talks about an emergency clause that's initiated, the sense of urgency to do this. And all it says is you have to vote by this November. I don't see where that meets the definition of the constitution.

I may be missing something, but it doesn't. So I'll wrap it up and just basically say that that the the voters of Fresno County absolutely do deserve to follow the process that you all have laid out and get to a mission. Thank you. This is not the process.

Thank you. Any additional opposition, please come forward. Please state your name, affiliation, if any, and the fact of your opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair members. Emma Jungwirth here on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. We don't have an official position, but I do just wanna note concerns about the bill impeding local control by overturning the vote, decision by the board and that the precedent this could set for future elections. Thank you.

Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposition.

Any additional opposition?

Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Can I just wanna make sure I wanna clarify some facts? Mister Yoder, you said a few things. So they did do they validated the signatures. Right?

Yes.

Okay. So even though sampling didn't work, there were there were valid signatures enough to place it on the ballot. Correct? So the voters signed enough to place it on the ballot.

Yes.

Okay. And the Board of Supervisors chose to do take time to study in a way that would make it physically impossible under existing law for this to appear on the November ballot even though enough valid signatures were submitted?

That's correct. If I could, Mister Chair, just add that they felt like that study was absolutely imperative.

Do do you think that's appropriate for

I can't speak.

For an elected body to literally say you submitted enough valid signatures, and we're going to take a step to preclude it from appearing on the November ballot in a way that will frankly deprive more than a year of revenue for trends. I mean, do you think that's appropriate?

I don't wanna see I'm

I'm asking that in good faith.

No. I'll answer in good faith. We I think you and I can do that for each other. I can't speak to the, you know, the appropriateness. I know that technically legally, that's what state law allows.

I would, I would say to the committee that the proponents have known. The proponents like to say that the board could have done the study earlier. The proponents knew that state law allows the study. And so I guess it's just which side you're on. Right?

Signatures submitted earlier, validated sooner. Right? Would have meant that none of us are here right now. I'll just say it again. And that's not, that's not the Fresno Board of Supervisors fault.

It's just not. And then, and then they exercise their rights under current state law.

Why don't we hear from the Mayor and then I'll go to you.

But the job of the supervisors was a ministerial duty. They could order that study and still allow it to respect the democratic process and continue respecting the people's will to have this in the ballot. But they utilize the process, the law as it stays in their favor to fulfill what they wanted, which is stopped it.

These people were against this measure, this initiative since way long before. So they utilize and weaponize the current law, state law to fulfill what they wanted, which is stopped it.

They could have approved that this to be in November valid and do whatever many studies they want still, but allow people to choose in November. Respect the people's will, respect the democratic process.

Mister Chair, I think that's exactly what we're asking people to do is respect the democratic process, and you've created a process for all cities and counties to follow. In this case, I think it's very important to know. We know that expiration date of the of the measure. This is work that our council governments has engaged in years ago.

In 2022, the extension of this ballot initiative went to the voters for approval. The very group that's standing behind you are us asking you to do what you're they're wanting you to do, raise money and kill that ballot initiative. And it failed 58% when it was coming in at a 79%. And that's fine. That's their right.

That's the democratic process. Right? They did not like the way the measure how far the measure went to meet their needs, so they stopped it. Okay. So now we fast forward as okay.

So what's the next measure? Are we gonna do something? That was 2022. Nothing happened in '23. Nothing happened in '24.

Nothing happened in '25. In January of this year '26, they start a process. You know, a lot of us have experienced in in these types of initiatives. Takes a lot of work. Takes a lot of time.

You don't start eight months before you're, you know, trying to get on the ballot. And as Paul indicated, when they went to the sample ballot and failed, I mean from a process standpoint, that to me is quality control wasn't done properly by the folks when you fail that process. If it would have passed in May, if that set random sample would have passed, we wouldn't be sitting here today. They would have gone to the board immediate next meeting in June.

They would order their 30 day study, would have been back by late June, early July.

They would have voted to put on the ballot. There's no question this thing is going on the ballot. The only question is, is it in '26 or is it in '28? So that's kinda where we're at. And as Paul said, there's so many dynamics that have occurred since last Friday when this whole process started.

I mean, now the county's written in litigation, you know, if the Governor signs this bill. Okay? The city, as I don't know if you're aware, two weeks ago, they passed the initiative within the city council to go it alone, a 5% city sales tax. I don't necessarily support that because that hurts all of our rural communities. Because the City of Fresno pull that off, it's gonna be just the judgment of our rural community.

That's what this dynamic has set in place. And as of today, because of threatened county litigation now on Monday, the city is prepared and preparing to put their measure on the ballot probably by tomorrow, if not Friday. That's not good for our community. That that's the confusion right now that's being caused in Fresno because of what's happening right now.

So, I mean obviously, you can do what you're gonna do, but but I would wish you would leave this to local controls for folks to handle their business locally.

Great. Thank you, colleagues. Senator Choi and then Senator Allen.

Thank you. I have few comments to make. Thank you everybody, to for your testimony. Unfortunately, I cannot support this rushed measure that was only put into print two days ago. There is a lot of opposition to this bill, from elected officials in your own district and for good reason.

This measure tramples on local control. Local control word has been used several times, both sides. As far as I am concerned, the local control is the authority that belongs to the local local local government, not at that to come up to the above level, the state level to over control. And it doesn't even let the county agencies complete a legally allowed analysis of the ballot before it goes to the ballot.

The analysis would have been required to be completed eight days from now, but it seems that even that was too much time for proponents of this bill.

Besides Fresno and Clovis, the largest cities in Fresno County, which are Ridley, Sanger, and Selma along with the Kingsburg all opposed this AB 1923. Under election code 9118, county supervisors have the right to submit the measure to county agencies for thirty day review process so that the public can be fully aware of the effects of the ballot measure.

This is critical as county transportation measures involving billions of dollars and the three decade tax commitment should receive a full analysis before it gets sent to the voters. Instead of allowing that analysis to be completed, AB 1923 creates an exemption just for the Fresno County, and the force is the measure to be placed there on the ballot before the county can fully evaluate and consider its effects. This is a troubling precedent to establish.

Counties must be able to reply on the election code to be applied fairly and uniformly. If the legislature can selectively override procedures for one county, That means the review process will have no protection for local communities facing similar measures in the future. The law should be applied consistently and fairly.

It should be disappointing to set a precedent where whenever proponents dislike the timeline, they can simply turn to the legislature before a county has finished its legally authorized analysis. That's local control.

I strongly encourage everybody in the committee to vote no AB 1923 as this trampers on local control and prevents voters from being fully informed on important measures. With this background, I have a couple series of questions to the author. First of all, Fresno County is in your district, and they oppose this measure strongly. And I need to know why.

And what is wrong with this current process that is followed by the Fresno Board of Supervisors to where it requires a state legislature to override county's authority here?

So I'll go ahead and take that question, Senator. Thank you very much for for asking the questions. Appreciate your opinions. The bottom line is that the elected officials are not unanimously agreed on this issue. We have 11 of the 15 mayors in the county that support the measure, including the Mayor of Fresno.

And so, so we have some a supervisor that's in support of the bill. We've got some council members in the City of Fresno and and the 11 mayors. And so they're they are the elected officials that have participated in the community process to create the language of of the measure and also to get signatures.

And that's the reason that we're supporting the bill today, including all of the residents that have shown up and all of the people that you see on the letter in support, all of the different organizations that really represent a broad coalition of people in the County of Fresno.

And so it's for that reason that we're supporting number 1. Number 2 is this is a ministerial process and it's our opinion that the, that the way that the process was set up, once you get the signatures that have been verified, that it should be placed on the next election cycle, which is what was anticipated and that if any study was gonna be done, it could be have been done with, within the period of time that was left.

That were this bill does not negate that study. It doesn't do anything to it. I'm assuming it's gonna be coming to the Board of Supervisors, and they can look at it and make their comments about it. But that study doesn't give the board the ability to overrule the signatures that have been prepared for this ballot measure. And so for that reason, we believe this is consistent with what how that statute was written.

And we just want it very clear that the that it should be placed on the, on the next election cycle.

From what I understand is that still we do we have enough time within eight days or the analysis by the County Supervisors will be completed in enough time enough time to be placed at this cycle of election. My next question is, it's widely known that the local officials are best placed to review how proposed laws will impact the residents. AB 1923 undermines the process.

It's established on the California election code, forcing Fresno County to place a specific initiative on the ballot before the county is able to fully evaluate its consequences. What is the reason for this?

As I said before, the Board of Supervisor, it's this is an important context, which is that the Board of Supervisors in their in the ministerial act, certifies that they the signatures, that they get the information from from the registrar, that the signatures have qualified and that the ballot or the measure is ready for the ballot. And once that's been done, it goes on the next election cycle.

If you have information that they're willing to have a special meeting, then that's different information from what we heard.

And I'll just add, actually, very publicly, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors has said that he will not hold a special meeting to put this measure on the ballot. Otherwise, we would not be here. To your point. What we believe, wholeheartedly is that what we are doing today strengthens democracy. Democracy is about the people having the right to vote.

We're not undermining democracy because all we're saying is allow this proposal to be on the November ballot. And I appreciate the comments both, you know, from opposition and those that are in support in terms of the substantive the substance of the measure. We're not here to debate the substance of the measure.

We are here to simply, question the motive of the board and the process in ensuring that this ballot measure in this ballot, includes this local measure that was qualified legally by the current laws of California.

Okay. I have a final question for now. In December 2025, at the Fresno Council of Government meeting, Independent legal counsel advised against approving the core components of the measure due to inaccuracies that were brought to light to the public a few weeks before at the Fresno County Board of Super Supervisors meeting. Why should the state force through this measure and open up the county to expensive litigation?

I think what happened at the Fresno Council of Governments originally, it was a movement, a government movement, then that failed. And then it went into a citizens led movement. So I think we gotta make it very clear that this is a citizens led movement, not a Fresno council of Government's movement. But we do have the support of 11 mayors supporting this movement forward. All we're asking here is to allow it to be in the November ballot.

You can continue doing all your studies that you want. Just allow it to be in the November ballot.

Also, we wanna defer to maybe to some specifics to some of the folks that were intimately involved in the gathering of the signatures and the process.

Sorry. Yeah. Just to respond to that question, the December meeting that you're referencing referencing. First, I'd like to reiterate what Assemblymember Soria just said, which is we are not here to debate the substance of that of the measure itself. We're here to talk about the measure making it onto the ballot. That's what 1923 does.

In December 2025, when the council of governments at that meeting and county council raised issues, it wasn't about the process. It wasn't about the measure. It wasn't about voter rights or democracy. It was about an entirely different plan, the substance of a proposal that was before the Council of Governments, which is not even the plan that is that has qualified for the ballot today. That is an entirely separate document than what voters qualified.

Okay. I have a series of other questions, but for now, I will leave to other members to question.

Thank you, Senator Allen.

Wow. Alright. Thank you everybody. Let me let me just start as a point of personal privilege to welcome to, my wonderful member of the Board of Equalization, Tony Vasquez, who's here. And then, one of my school Board Members, his wonderful wife who I served with, Mariela and Vasquez, they're both here.

I know they spent time in the valley and just appreciate your presence, both of you guys. Welcome to our capital. This is of course, been a been a real discussion. I just wanna ask Mister Yoder. I'd love to get a sense, you know, because it seems to kinda hinge on this question of this decision to to call for this study, at the time that they called for it.

Do you have any and maybe Supervisor Perea can mention can can speak to this too. Is there any precedent? I believe that Fresno has had measures on parks and the zoo and, transit and, transportation in the past roads. Is there any precedent for this kind of call for a study after signatures have qualified the measure for the ballot to delay the consideration of the measure?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that I wanna make sure the members are aware that there is a very similar issue right now in Alameda County over a different topic, the minimum wage in Alameda County. But it's similar and that this the signature gathering went right up until the last minute And the certification process took as long as it took. Right? And the Alameda Board is actually, I think also requesting a thirty day study. And so

With all due respect, I don't think that's very relevant to the issue before us. I think that the question being proposed is, has Fresno County ever studied or, you know, called for an economic study, for any other citizen led initiative in Fresno County? I can answer that for you, Fresno County. I can answer that for you, Senator, if that's okay.

Sure.

I've been in elected office in Fresno County for the last twelve years and in my recollection and even before as a resident, I've never seen a Board of Supervisors call for this type of economic study when it comes to, these types of initiatives.

You're saying your

I was gonna say, I'm happy to ask the county and follow-up with with you directly.

Absolutely.

But you're saying is the Alameda is effectively doing the same thing. It's happening here.

Okay.

Yes. Yeah. You can Google it. Anybody in the committee anybody can hear my voice in Google right now.

Thank you for that answer. Okay. I think part of it so part of the challenge here is I'd love to ask the authors, why was it that the vote was so that the signature gathering was so late relatively?

So let me just say that that it's been mischaracterized that this was done at the last minute. That is far from the truth. There was a ballot measure that failed a number of years ago. And immediately upon that ballot measure failing, there was a community group that came together to start discussions about what should take its place. I don't wanna talk about the difference between the two ballot measures in term but because that's really a distraction.

The reality of the situation is that started in 2023, and there were monthly meetings with COG and other organizations, all other entities in the county to talk about. Because we're talking about funds that would be generated in the county. They wanted to make sure that there was a discussion about what roads in what communities would get a split of the resources.

And because it's a rural community, the small cities wanted to make sure that there was money for them to be able to fix up the roads, not just the highways. And so that happened for a period of two years after which then the outreach if you will, to the community started to have a discussion about what do community members want?

What does Kerman need? What does Mendota need in terms of transportation services, public transportation, and then roadways, and safe routes to schools and everything else that goes along with that. So it's been it went on for a long period of time. Now what happened with the signature gathering is that there were some overenthusiastic people who signed the petition more than once. Right?

They were contacted at the store or they were contacted at home, and they didn't remember they had signed it. So when they did the first review, which is just a spot review, they found, that not all the signatures were were valid. In other words, they may have voted twice. And so they went back and did the entire review, and that was done expeditiously. There was no delay.

There was it's the register of voters that does that. Right?

So were they were they originally hoping to get this done through the county?

Yes.

Yes. And then the county board wasn't into it?

Yes.

So they had to take? Okay. Gotcha.

But so they were their focus was on the county board path?

Absolutely.

And then when that didn't pan out because of disagreement, they went the the ballot collection signature way. Okay. Okay.

Thank you. That's that's very helpful. Yeah. I mean look, I think I think that the the challenge here is I hear, you know, the arguments of our friends from the county and supervisor who I respect a great deal. I think

And do we.

The chat yeah. No. I know.

I think the challenge here is, you know what, you know, in the end of the day, you know, what there's a process at place at the county, but you know, but no board is infallible. And there's a check on the process, which is you know, here we have the Assemblymember and the Senator who represent the communities.

We've got you know, 11 out of the 15 mayors of the county, including Fresno's, which is important because not only is it the biggest city, of course, but I know there were some concerns about the the the allocation of the funds and, you know, was it shifting too much money out of the city?

You know, we've got respected you know, we got the Central Labor Council, respected labor leaders like Alfred and Molina and others that are here you know, speaking on behalf of you know, some of the workers in the community and the folks that, you know, that do the work driving and operating our transit system, legal voters.

I mean, a lot lots of different folks who who who really I think there there's a strong case to be made that there that that there's a lot of popular support for putting this on the ballot.

At the end of the day, this is just giving people the opportunity to vote. As we saw in 2022, there you know, folks disagree with the way this is being you know formulated. By all means, raise the money and, you know oppose it. But you know, it seems that you know, I think I'm understanding the circumstances by which our Senator and Assemblymember are bringing this to us to place on the ballot.

So my and I will say, I absolutely understand the idea that the original measure was set to build these freeways and that you know, succeeded.

As I've been spent time in Fresno, I'm and like any town, there's there are new needs that, you know, that go beyond what was needed years ago.

And I I'm excited to see here so much interest in transit in Fresno and people wanting to get on the bus and wanting to build out our system and make sure we get people using public transit, you know, and I like I love the fact that our broader mentality as a state is to move more toward transit, even as we make sure we have a strong road infrastructure.

And I know that that's, you know, that that's also some of the spirit behind this measure. Making sure we have active transportation projects in a lot of the smaller towns in the county, in the western portion of the county that have oftentimes been ignored or let's say, Dis, you know, without adequate investment. And so I'm gonna I'll move the bill when appropriate.

I wanna just thank the authors, you know, for coming forward with this measure. I have incredible respect for both of the witnesses in opposition, but I'm I think that for me, this passes the smell test in terms of popular support in the in from across the county. And I just think at the end of the day, all this is doing is giving the voters the opportunity to decide whether this merits their support or not.

It's never easy to pass a tax measure. Having worked on several, Maria and I have worked on several in our hometown, it's not easy.

We've lost. We've won. And now it's gonna be up to this coalition to, you know, to be able to make the case to the voters whether, you know, this meets the smell test for them as to whether they wanna dig into their pockets and fund the projects that are in this, in this measure. So and with incredible respect to everyone involved, I will move the measure when appropriate.

Thank you. Okay. I think we're we've exhausted our questions and comments. And so with that, we will allow the authors to close.

So let me just, thank everybody for being here today and for all the comments. I think this has been a really robust conversation. And the bottom line is I think the Senator Allen said it well. This is basically to put this on the ballot and let the voters decide, what should happen. And this does not, impact the report that has been requested.

And, and I have to say that I've never done a bill this expeditiously. I take my time and I work it really hard, but this is really important to the County of Fresno. And it's very important to all of these people who have spent the last number of years working, negotiating, compromising, and putting pen to paper, to try to extend a tax measure that's gonna benefit their community.

And so, for myself and for the Assembly member, thank the committee for this opportunity to have this conversation.

I also just wanna say, thank you to the Chair for holding this public hearing. I appreciate the robust debate both on those that are here supporting as well as those in opposition. Today, your presence, everyone here reminds us that democracy matters. Today, we are here protecting the initiative process and the right of the people to have their voices heard in our local community. And so again, a vote today of AB 1923 is not a vote in support or against measure c.

It's a vote to allow the voters of Fresno County to decide. That is true democracy, in our state and in this country. And so thank you again to all those who drove, hundreds of miles to be here. It shows that this is important in our local community. And so with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. Thank you very much. We have a motion by applause. We have a motion by Senator Allen and that is do passed to the Senate floor. And with that, we will call the roll.

[roll call]

Okay. So the vote is three to one. That is and that those are sufficient votes for it to pass. We'll put it on call to wait for a Senator Cervantes to add on. So thank you everyone.

Thank you very much.

Great. Okay. We'll come back from, I don't know if we were on recess? We were not on recess.

Okay. Please, let's open the roll and call the absent member.

Motion is do passed. Current votes 3-1. Chair voted aye.

[roll call]

Okay. The vote is 4-1, and the motion passes. That concludes our business today. I wanna I but this is likely our last hearing of the year. I wanna thank our staff for making this committee run and all of our members.

So thank you everyone. And with that, the committee is adjourned.