Action News obtained the county's 38-page lawsuit, which was officially filed against the state, the Better Roads Safe Streets campaign, and Elections Clerk James Kus.
According to the lawsuit, the county describes AB 1923 as "a statute unlike any other in the modern history of California election law."
Despite the litigation, representatives of the Better Roads Safe Streets campaign say they expect the measure to appear on the November ballot.
"Democracy cannot be overridden just because three people want that to happen," Sandra Celedon said. "They can say that the sky is purple, but guess what, it's still not, so we are going to be on the ballot in November."
On Tuesday, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors voted to postpone the election on the measure until March 2028. However, Kus said he intends to follow AB 1923, the law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom that directs him to place the measure on the November ballot.
"My department will be using the resolution that has been provided by the Board of Supervisors to meet that requirement in the assembly bill," Kus said.
As of now, the measure has not been given a name. Kus said voters can expect to see a ballot question provided by the Board of Supervisors, while the measure implemented would be the plan outlined by the Better Roads Safe Streets campaign.
Kus also acknowledged that court proceedings could affect how the law is interpreted.
"Now a court could further refine what the assembly bill means," he said.
Supervisor Nathan Magsig told Action News that county officials met with attorneys to discuss the state law and concluded it is "flawed." He said AB 1923 is "ambiguous" and argued that it raises "significant constitutional issues."
Campaign supporters disagreed with the county's legal challenge.
"We know that this is a meritless lawsuit and it's really unfortunate that we have elected officials that are willing to spend taxpayer resources in a way that takes away from essential services," Sandra said.
Because Kus is a county employee and is named as a defendant in the lawsuit filed by the county, he said he must retain outside counsel. He said the county will cover those costs.
"I have begun that process under the assumption that the board has authorized a lawsuit against the state of California and myself," Kus said.
Meanwhile, the city of Fresno has created a backup option in case the measure does not make the November ballot.
The controversy continued Tuesday after a special meeting was called to vote to withdraw their measure from the ballot.
The meeting ended without convening because only three council members were present, leaving no action to be taken.
The campaign contends the Fresno City Council endorsed its measure and has expressed concern that two tax measures on the same ballot could create confusion for voters.
The measure would require more than 50% voter approval to pass. If approved, it would remain in effect for 30 years.
"It's an extension of what we've been doing for the last 40 years but it's better because we're actually going to be focusing on the street right in front of our house, on the street that leads to our schools," Sandra said.
A court decision is expected before Sept. 9, the deadline by which ballots must be printed and begin being shipped.
For news and weather updates, follow Brisa Colón on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.