Urgent in July, Patient in October

In July, the district’s lawsuit over who gets to vote in its elections was an emergency. In October, it apparently isn’t. Here is what the court file shows, what it means for the Nov. 3 election, and what I think about it. The filings are posted in full on the Court cases page at pcwdinfo.com.

What happened

The board authorized the suit at a special meeting on July 22, 2026, as reported in open session on Aug. 12. The district filed it on July 29 against James A. Kus, the Fresno County Clerk and Registrar of Voters (Fresno County Superior Court No. 26CU02177). The dispute is over the boundary map the Registrar uses to decide who can vote in and run for district elections, and in particular whether residents of the district’s sewer-only service areas are included.

The district asked for emergency relief. It filed an ex parte application, the fast-track process for urgent requests, asking the court to order the Registrar to accept candidate filings and provide ballots in the sewer-only areas. The Registrar, represented by County Counsel, opposed it, arguing among other things that the district had waited too long. At a hearing on Aug. 3, the court denied the request. The one-page minute order gives no reason.

On Oct. 2, the district filed an amended petition. It asks the court to stop the Registrar from certifying the results of the Nov. 3 director election or, if the results are certified, to invalidate them and order a new election at the Registrar’s cost. Its first request is an order blocking certification “pending a hearing.” But in the court file I have reviewed, there is no new ex parte application and no request for an expedited hearing to get that order before Election Day.

What it means

The election goes ahead on Nov. 3 using the current map. The court will decide later whether that election should count. If it rules for the district, the results could be set aside and a new election ordered. Until then, every candidate who wins, and every voter who cast a ballot, is waiting to learn whether the election stands.

My view

There are two ways to read the change in pace. After the court turned down the emergency request in August, the district’s counsel may have concluded that asking again would not succeed. Or the district may prefer a ruling after the results are known. The court record does not say which, and I won’t pretend to know.

Either way, the board majority authorized a lawsuit whose most likely result, for now, is uncertainty: for voters, for candidates, and for ratepayers, who pay the district’s legal bills. The underlying map question is real, and the sewer-only residents deserve an answer. The agency that sets district boundaries is the Local Agency Formation Commission, and its process is where that answer has to come from.

Dutcher’s Take

Urgent in July, patient in October. When the district wanted the court to act within days, it said so. Now that the election is days away, as far as the court file shows, it hasn’t asked again. Whether that is strategy or resignation, the effect is the same: voters will cast ballots in an election their own water district is asking a court to throw out.

I have pushed for fixing the map the way the law provides, through LAFCo, rather than through a lawsuit. The people living in the sewer-only areas have been left out for years. They deserve a fix, not a court fight that may not end until well after the votes are counted, and that ratepayers will pay for either way.