By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Miami City Commission voted to postpone the November 2025 election to 2026, a move that extends the terms of current officials, including term-limited Mayor Francis Suarez and Commissioner Joe Carollo. While proponents argue the change will increase voter turnout, critics, including candidates and some residents, label it a “power grab” and question the legality of altering the election date without voter approval. Despite concerns raised by the Florida Attorney General and opposing commissioners, the city’s legal counsel believes the change is permissible, citing a precedent set by North Miami. The postponement significantly impacts the political landscape, potentially affecting candidates and setting the stage for a vote on lifetime term limits for city officials in a special election.
Read the original article here
It’s official: Miami cancels November election, postpones it to 2026. This is a significant development, and it’s generating a lot of discussion. The core of the matter is straightforward: the city of Miami has decided to postpone its upcoming November election, pushing it back to 2026. This decision has understandably raised eyebrows and concerns about the motives and implications.
The immediate concern for many is the potential for abuse of power. The argument is that it shouldn’t be within the city’s authority to simply cancel an election unless there’s a compelling reason, like a natural disaster. The move extends the current city administration’s time in power by an extra year, which is why it’s drawing criticism.
The push to reschedule the elections is seemingly tied to larger discussions about restructuring the City of Miami government. There’s been advocacy for changes, including aligning city elections with the even-year general elections that take place on a national level. This is a significant shift from the usual off-cycle municipal elections, which typically see lower voter turnout. Advocates of this change were also looking at expanding the City Commission to provide provisions against gerrymandering.
A key question is why aligning the elections with even-year general elections is seen as beneficial. The basic idea is that when elections coincide with major national elections, voter turnout tends to be much higher. More people, as a result, participate in local elections. The city’s current government is new, and this move seems to be happening as part of an effort to get ahead of efforts for reform. It’s argued that this will also save money.
The reactions to the postponement are diverse and sometimes polarized. There is a clear concern that the move is undemocratic. Some are pointing out that the Florida Attorney General, along with Governor DeSantis, disagrees with the action. They believe it exceeds the city’s authority and requires voter approval, a sentiment that adds another layer of complexity to the situation.
The political affiliations of the city commissioners involved are also being noted. The votes in favor of postponing the election were a mix of both Democrats and Republicans. Although city seats are technically nonpartisan, it’s known how the different commissioners affiliate.
Beyond the immediate context, the situation is being viewed through a broader lens of political maneuvering. Some see this as a test case, a trend that could potentially spread to other states. The suspicion is that this could be a move to consolidate power. There are those who interpret this as a sign of authoritarianism.
There is also the question of whether the decision is legal. The Florida Attorney General has already issued an opinion that the city doesn’t have the authority to make the change without a vote. If this is the case, challenges are likely. It is expected the courts will weigh in on the action.
There’s a significant debate over the ethics of extending the current terms of office. If the city government felt it necessary to make this shift, some argue that they should have applied the extension to the terms of office after the next election, not the current ones. This adds fuel to the concern that the postponement is intended to give those currently in power an advantage.
The situation in Miami highlights the potential tension between the desire for reform and the risk of political manipulation. Even if the intent is to increase voter turnout and save money, the way the change is being implemented is leading to a lot of scrutiny. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming months.