Despite a decision by Fresno County voters last year, the county’s district attorney and sheriff elections will take place alongside presidential elections moving forward.
A Fresno County Superior Court judge sided with California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber on Monday to shoot down Measure A.
The backstory: Fresno County voters passed Measure A in 2024 to set the elections for district attorney and sheriff during California’s gubernatorial elections, which happens during the midterms for the presidential election.
- Measure A was in response to Assembly Bill 759, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in 2022. AB 759 requires district attorney and sheriff elections to be held in conjunction with presidential primaries.
- AB 759 grants an exemption for charter counties that had a rule in place before 2021 specifying when local elections are held, but the state argued in a lawsuit filed last year that Fresno County did not have such a rule in place by then.
The big picture: Judge Tyler Tharpe ruled in favor of the state, finding that AB 759 supercedes Measure A.
- “While the County does have the authority to set the terms of its elected officials, it is not authorized under the California Constitution to set the dates on which the elections of local officials will be held,” Tharpe ruled. “Therefore, Measure A is preempted by AB 759.)
- Tharpe ruled that Fresno County’s reading of the California Constitution granting charter counties the ability to set the terms of local elections to be overbroad. Fresno County has the power to set the terms of its officers, such as setting a four-year term, but setting the term for which an official will serve is not the same as setting the timing of their election or the dates on which the elections will take place, Tharpe ruled.
- “Notably, in the past, the County never attempted to specify the years in which the elections of its officials would be held prior to the adoption of Measure A, and instead followed state law, which at the time stated that the elections of county officials would be held in gubernatorial primary election years,” Tharpe ruled. “If the County actually had the authority to set the timing of the elections of its officials, one would expect that its charter would have specified the years in which the elections would be held rather than deferring to state law on the issue.”
What we’re watching: With Tharpe’s ruling, Fresno County District Attorney Lisa Smittcamp and Fresno County Sheriff John Zanoni will both be up for reelection in 2028, meaning they have their four-year terms extended to six years for this current cycle.
- The Fresno County Board of Supervisors plans to discuss any potential next steps to the lawsuit during closed session at its next meeting on June 10.
What they’re saying: “There is nothing more fundamental to American democracy than the right to vote and make your voice heard,” Bonta said. “With Measure A, Fresno County threatened to undermine that fundamental right, intentionally seeking to move elections for sheriff and district attorney to off years when voters are far less likely to show up and cast a ballot. Our democracy works best when everyone can participate. I’m proud to have worked with Secretary of State Weber to have permanently blocked this unlawful measure.”
- Weber added, “Our democracy works best when more citizens can participate in our elections. Today’s ruling helps ensure more voices are heard through the ballot box in Fresno County’s elections for district attorney and sheriff.”
- Fresno City Attorney Andrew Janz celebrated the ruling, in a statement to The Sun.
- “This ruling does not come as a surprise as Measure A clearly violated state law. We applaud the Court for its ruling and congratulate Attorney General Bonta and his team for successfully litigating this case. Elections work best when more voters participate,” Janz said.
The other side: Fresno County said it is disappointed in the ruling since it dismisses the will and votes of Fresno County residents.
- Smittcamp and Zanoni released a joint statement saying they are committed to serving out their extended terms and also raised concerns with AB 759.
- “We continue to have serious concerns about the legislative process that led to the enactment of AB 759,” they said. “After sitting in the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file for over a year, the bill advanced rapidly in the final weeks of the legislative session and was signed into law by the Governor on September 29, 2022 – with little to no opportunity for public review. As a result, local governments and voters were excluded from a policy decision that directly affects the terms of their elected officials.”
