Now You See It, Now You Don’t - How the State Legislature and Newsom Pulled a Switcheroo on Fresno

Normally I would not pay much attention to Fresno politics, but what just happened a few days ago was beyond unbelievable–it was flat out deceitful, shrewd, sneaky, and it could easily happen to Elk Grove someday.

Fresno County voters approved a ½ cent transportation sales tax in 1986 and it was to run for 20 year. In 2007, voters approved the Measure for another 20 year term (with a June 2027 expiration). The Measure is aimed primarily at roads, highways, transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, paratransit, car/van pools, technology, and transportation mitigation.

Seeing that the current Measure was going to expire next June, supporters gathered signatures for a petition to place an extension on the upcoming November ballot. The petition was certified by the Registrar on July 8th–the filing deadline date for getting a measure placed on the ballot.

On July 14th, the Board of Supervisors met and had to decide whether to put the initiative on the ballot without alteration, or refer it to a County agency for an impact study, such as fiscal, and then consider the report before deciding to place the measure on the ballot. The Board voted to order a 30-day impact report. That decision effectively precluded the measure from being placed on the November ballot.

Measure proponents, apparently unhappy about missing the November ballot deadline, decided to seek State intervention. It should also be noted that this new Measure proposes to change the spending philosophy: 65% local road repair/maintenance; 25% public transit; 5% regional transportation, etc. I note this because I was curious about the political power players who may be pushing this Measure. As we know with Sacramento’s Measure A road tax, the bulk of the money goes to subsidizing new roads for developers.

At the urging of the Central Valley Community Foundation, 11 Fresno County mayors, labor organizations, and transportation advocates, Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria and Sen. Anna Caballero came up with an ingenious idea. AB 1923 a Distressed Hospital Loan Program, working its way through the legislature, was completely rewritten as an urgency statute and retitled “Better Roads, Safe Streets” initiative for the November ballot.

Soria and Caballero introduced the urgency bill on August 3rd–the legislature approved it on August 6th–and Newsom signed it that same day. The deadline for placing an initiative on the State ballot for November was that following day. To completely rewrite a bill, have both houses approve, and have the Governor sign it in a three-day period is astonishing!

This action has losers and winners. One of the biggest losers are the financially distressed hospitals throughout the entire state that would have benefitted by the passage of the original AB 1923. Those hospitals typically have a high percentage of Medi-Cal patients and relatively small State reimbursements, and now AB 1923 is reserved as a Fresno County road tax measure.

Whether this was an orchestrated stall tactic or not, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors will not have a chance to review the economic impacts of the Measure before it is placed on the ballot. Supervisor Chair Bredefeld has stated that the Board intends to file a lawsuit challenging the State action because they claim “they had authority under state election law to order the study, and the Legislature cannot retroactively single out Fresno County and eliminate that authority just because it dislikes the result”.

Several things are clear: Powerful interests can orchestrate pretty sophisticated legislative maneuvers to push their agenda; willing politicians will gladly step in to shepherd those interests through the legislative minefield; partisan loyalty can bring guaranteed results; and widespread voter apathy enables a lot of political shenanigans that often cost them in the pocketbook.

Editor’s Note: Assy. Stephanie Nguyen and Sen. Angelique Ashby both voted Yes.