‘A victory for every voter’: Appeals court blocks Miami election delay, calling move unconstitutional

Miami City Hall.

A Florida appeals court has dealt a significant blow to Miami officials’ controversial plan to delay city elections until 2026, ruling Thursday the ordinance extending elected officials’ terms was unconstitutional and must be struck down.

In a sharply worded 27-page decision, the 3rd District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court’s finding that the city violated both its charter and the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter when it voted in June to postpone the November 2025 mayoral and Commission elections.

The three-judge panel concluded the city cannot override its charter without a voter referendum.

“(Miami) may not enact an ordinance which effectively amends its Charter without submission of the issue to the will and vote of its constituents by referendum,” the court wrote, declaring the ordinance “unconstitutional.”

The decision marks a major legal victory for Emilio González, a Republican former City Manager and one of nine candidates running for Mayor, who sued Miami over the ordinance. Gonzalez’s legal team, led by former Florida Supreme Court Justice Alan Lawson, argued the city’s move disenfranchised voters and illegally extended officials’ terms without electoral consent.

“This is a victory for every voter in Miami,” González said in a statement.

“They tried to silence the public. They tried to rewrite the rules mid-game. They lied about turnout, lied about costs, and ignored our city’s Constitution. And they did it all for themselves. The court saw through it.”

In its defense of the ordinance, City Attorney George Wysong cited state laws that allow municipalities to shift election dates by ordinance and referred to a previous court ruling in which a court upheld a similar date change in North Miami.

But the court rejected that argument, pointing to Miami-Dade’s home rule protections, which require voter approval for any changes to municipal election schedules or term lengths.

Miami Commissioner Damian Pardo, who sponsored the ordinance, responded to the ruling on X, writing, “We congratulate those who fought hard for their point of view and prevailed in the court today. We remain committed to increasing voter representation and decreasing electoral costs in the City of Miami and plan to introduce legislation to place moving the elections to even years on the ballot as soon as possible.”

Lawson said in a statement that he and his client were “grateful the Court acted swiftly and decisively” on the matter.

“The City of Miami’s decision to cancel its elections and extend the terms of its officials without a vote of the electorate was unlawful,” he said. “Our analogy that in canceling this election, city officials mirrored the actions of regimes in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Bolivia — governments that routinely violate their own laws and constitutions — remains apt.”

Miami-Dade Commissioner Eileen Higgins, a Democrat competing in the nonpartisan Mayor’s race, called the ruling “a win for democracy and fairness.”

“If we want to move elections to even-numbered years to increase participation, let’s do it the right way: through voter approval. As Mayor, I’ll propose shortening the next Mayor’s term and putting the question on the 2026 ballot to modernize our democracy without undermining it,” she said in a statement. “It’s time to move past the chaos and dysfunction at City Hall and that starts by electing a Mayor committed to restoring trust and delivering results for the people of Miami. I will do it on day one.”

The Miami City Commission narrowly approved the delay in a 3-2 vote on June 27, with Pardo and Commissioners Christine King and Ralph Rosado voting in favor and Joe Carollo and Miguel Gabela opposing it.

The change would have shifted Miami’s elections from odd to even years and added an extra year to the terms of all sitting officials — including term-limited Mayor Francis Suarez, who reportedly lobbied for the move.

Supporters said the move would align local races with high-turnout presidential and gubernatorial elections, boosting participation and saving money. Critics denounced it as a power grab.

“What the city of Miami is doing is wrong,” Carollo said at a press conference earlier this month. “I am one that, yes, it was going to benefit. It would give me an extra year. But like I said, it’s legally wrong and, most importantly, it’s morally wrong.”

A Miami-Dade circuit judge had already ruled the ordinance unconstitutional on July 21, but the city’s appeal triggered a stay that briefly removed mayoral candidates from the November ballot. That stay was lifted through an agreement between the city and González, allowing candidates to reappear on the ballot pending the appellate decision.

With Thursday’s ruling, that election is now back on for Nov. 5, 2025, barring further legal action. However, Suarez said through a city spokesperson that Miami is “exploring further further appellate options” and that he believes “the court’s expedited review may have led to an oversight of binding Supreme Court precedent that is central to the outcome of this dispute.”

Attorney General James Uthmeier and Gov. Ron DeSantis both previously warned the city that the delay was unconstitutional.

The issue caused ripple effects beyond Miami. In late June, Coral Gables Commissioner Melissa Castro sought Uthmeier’s input on a recent 3-2 decision to move her city’s elections from April in odd-numbered years to November in even-numbered years.

Castro and Commissioner Ariel Fernandez opposed the change, which Mayor Vince Lago, Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson and Commissioner Richard Lara approved. Lago, Anderson and Lara later voted against a measure Castro sponsored to reverse the move and censured Castro for contacting Uthmeier without the city’s “coordination or authorization.”