District 1 Council Race: Two School Board Members, Sharp Differences on ICE Work and Development

Two school board trustees are asking voters in Fresno’s District 1 — home to the Tower District and neighborhoods west of Highway 99 — to choose between them this November, and the choice comes down to how you weigh a record of federal prosecution work versus a signature on a controversial letter.

Naindeep Singh, executive director of Jakara Movement and a Central Unified trustee since 2018, finished first in June with 4,535 votes (38.7%). Rob Fuentes, a State Center Community College District trustee since 2022 and former federal prosecutor, came in second with 4,281 votes (36.5%) — about 250 votes behind.

The winner replaces Annalisa Perea, who’s running for State Assembly while Joaquin Arambula runs for a city council seat.

The campaign has been marked by pointed exchanges. Fuentes resigned from his federal prosecutor position in July after Fresnoland reported in June that he’d argued on behalf of ICE in at least 124 cases while campaigning on abolishing ICE. He was placed on leave before resigning following the reporting.

At an August forum, attendees said Fuentes told them he “obviously wasn’t working very hard” on those cases, seeming to imply he lost them on purpose — a statement he hasn’t confirmed or denied.

Fuentes also faces an ethics complaint filed with the California Fair Political Practices Commission alleging he violated “pay to play” laws by not recusing himself from closed-session discussions of a lawsuit settlement involving a construction company owned by major campaign donors Richard and Karen Spencer. Fuentes called the allegations “patently meritless.”

Fuentes has criticized Singh for signing a 2025 letter from Sikh American leaders recommending Trump appointee Harmeet Dhillon to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division. Dhillon has refused to investigate the ICE killing of Renee Good and deployed election monitors in California and other states.

Singh said he signed hoping it would put someone in power who understands transnational repression, which has threatened Sikh Americans including Singh personally. “No American should be threatened on American soil by a foreign government, but I have been, right here in Fresno, along with many other Sikhs,” he said, adding that he now regrets the decision: “This Trump administration proved far worse; I apologize for having hoped otherwise.”

Singh fired back at Fuentes: “There’s a difference between making a bad call to protect immigrants and working for a year actively harming them. He took a paycheck to harm the people I was trying to protect.”

The fundraising gap is wide: Singh has raised just under $336,000 — the most of any council candidate this cycle — while Fuentes has raised just below $219,000. Singh’s top donors include attorneys, physicians, and trucking company owners; Fuentes has received large donations from labor PACs and the Spencer family, well-known Republican donors whose company is named in the ethics complaint against him.

The Breakdown

• The seat: District 1 covers the Tower District, Fresno High, and neighborhoods west of Highway 99. The winner replaces Annalisa Perea.
• On ICE and immigration: Fuentes argued on behalf of ICE in at least 124 cases as a federal prosecutor while calling for ICE’s abolition as a candidate. He was placed on leave and then resigned after reporting on the contradiction. Singh signed a letter supporting Trump appointee Harmeet Dhillon for a Justice Department role, hoping she’d address transnational repression threats against Sikhs; he now says he regrets it.
• On development: Singh opposes the Southeast Development Area (SEDA) outright, calling it “corrupt handouts” to developers and citing a Sept. 3 financial presentation showing SEDA’s first sewer pipe could be funded by a loan against the city utilities department’s savings or surcharges on residential utility bills. Fuentes said in April he opposes SEDA “in its current form” but could support a revised version with “strict safeguards.”
• On housing: Singh supports infill and small-scale development over sprawl, including incentivizing backyard cottages and revitalizing vacant commercial properties, and wants the city to enforce “minimum, mandated upkeep” standards so landlords maintain usable buildings. Fuentes said in April he’d pursue Low-Income Housing Tax Credit opportunities and use city-owned land and vacant buildings to boost affordable housing.
• On surveillance: Singh shares civil rights concerns about Flock cameras and “warrantless searches” but said he wants to hear the police perspective. Fuentes told The Fresno Bee he doesn’t want the city to renew its Flock contract, citing concerns about “a system that creates a surveillance record of every single innocent person.”
• On homelessness: Singh supports breaking up encampments only if the city offers “direct housing connection” to residents, criticizes the city for “activities, not results,” and says feedback from unhoused people suggests the HART team “take away dogs and destroy property” without helping. Fuentes said in April he wants a “comprehensive study” of comparable cities to see what’s worked.
• On ballot measures: Both support Measure S (Better Roads, Safe Streets). Singh strongly opposes Measure D, the city’s backup general tax, calling Mayor Jerry Dyer’s decision to leave it on the ballot a failure of “leadership” and “integrity.” Fuentes hasn’t taken a public stance on Measure D.
• On ethics oversight: Singh supports an independent ethics commission and potentially an elected ombudsman, saying “this city is just rife with corruption.” Fuentes hasn’t commented publicly on the issue.

What This Means for You

This is a vote about whose judgment you trust when the pressure’s on — and whose record actually matches what they say they’ll do once elected.

One candidate worked as a federal prosecutor arguing to keep people in ICE detention while telling voters he wants ICE abolished, then appeared to tell forum attendees he sabotaged his own cases. The other signed a letter backing a Trump appointee who’s since refused to investigate an ICE killing, a decision he now regrets.

One candidate raised money from developers behind a company named in an ethics complaint against him, then said he could support a revised version of a sprawl project with “safeguards” — the kind of conditional opposition that can become a yes vote once the headlines move on. The other opposes that project outright and wants the city to actually enforce standards on landlords who let buildings sit vacant.

SEDA’s first sewer pipe could be funded by surcharges on residential utility bills if the city utilities department’s savings run out, according to a Sept. 3 financial presentation Singh cited.

If you care whether an official’s private work contradicted their public promises, whether big donors get a say in closed-session votes that affect their companies, and whether the city prioritizes infill over sprawl, this race gives you a clear choice.

What to Watch

This is a story about whether a record of contradictions disqualifies a candidate — or whether voters weigh the contradiction itself more than the issue it concerned.

Fuentes’ ICE work is not a minor footnote. At least 124 cases, arguing to keep people detained while running for office on abolishing the agency doing the detaining.

That’s not one judgment call; that’s a sustained pattern, and the question is whether seeming to tell forum attendees he threw those cases on purpose makes it better or worse.

But Singh signed a letter backing a Trump appointee whose record since then — refusing to investigate an ICE killing, deploying election monitors — is exactly what immigrant-rights advocates feared. He says transnational repression threats against Sikhs, including himself, drove that decision.

Does the explanation justify the signature, or does putting hope in a Trump appointee show a failure of judgment no explanation can fix?

On development, watch the gap between “I oppose this in its current form” and “I oppose this, period.” Fuentes has taken money from both SEDA critics and SEDA backers — labor groups opposed, developers and Mayor Dyer in favor — and said he could support a revised version with “strict safeguards.”

That kind of conditionality is exactly how a project that looks dead comes back to life after the election, once “safeguards” have been negotiated behind closed doors and a no vote would look like going back on your word.

Singh’s outright opposition leaves no room for that kind of reversal, but it also leaves no room for compromise if the project does move forward.

The ethics complaint against Fuentes is still pending. If the FPPC finds he violated “pay to play” laws by not recusing himself from discussions affecting his donors’ company, that finding will come from an independent state agency, not from Singh’s campaign.

A violation wouldn’t undo the election, but it would tell you exactly how seriously the conflict-of-interest rules were taken.

Finally, watch the money. Singh has raised $336,000 — more than any other council candidate this cycle. Fuentes has raised $219,000, a large chunk from the Spencer family, Republican donors whose company is named in the ethics complaint.

Large donations don’t prove corruption, but they do tell you who thinks they’ll benefit from a candidate winning, and it’s worth asking yourself: if those donors don’t expect something in return, why are they giving?