By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Miami City Commission voted to delay the November 2025 election to November 2026, effectively extending the terms of current officials, including term-limited Mayor Francis Suarez and Commissioner Joe Carollo. This decision has ignited controversy, with critics labeling it a “power grab” and alleging it disenfranchises voters who had already filed to run for office. Florida officials, including the Attorney General and Governor, have raised concerns over the legality of the shift, citing the city charter’s requirements for odd-year elections and voter approval for amendments. Despite this, the City Attorney cited a precedent from North Miami, upheld by the Third District Court of Appeals, which supports the commission’s ability to make such changes.
Read the original article here
City of Miami postpones the November 2025 election to 2026, extending officials’ terms, a move that has ignited a firestorm of debate. The core of the issue revolves around a city commission decision to shift the municipal elections, originally slated for November 2025, to coincide with the state and federal elections in 2026. The stated rationale is to boost voter turnout and streamline the election process, ultimately saving money. However, this seemingly straightforward objective is complicated by the fact that it necessitates extending the terms of the current city officials by a year.
This decision has drawn immediate and significant criticism, with many viewing it as a blatant power grab. Critics are quick to point out that the extension of terms, absent voter approval, could be a violation of the city’s charter, which typically mandates elections in odd-numbered years. Moreover, the Florida Attorney General and Governor have weighed in, arguing that the city lacks the authority to alter the election date without a green light from the voters. This sets up a potential legal showdown, and it’s likely we’ll see the matter played out in the courts.
Interestingly, the City Attorney has cited a legal precedent from North Miami, a case upheld by the Third District Court of Appeals, which seemingly permits such changes via a commission vote. But this distinction likely won’t quell the controversy. The very fact that Miami is a major city, with established candidates and pre-existing campaigns, adds a layer of complexity to the situation. The process isn’t just about changing a date; it’s also about potentially disrupting the plans of individuals who have already invested time and resources into their campaigns.
The political implications are also significant. The timing of this decision, particularly in a state where the Governor has been vocal in his objections, raises questions about the underlying motivations. Some speculate this could be a dry run to extend the terms of state officials, possibly even a precursor to something more ambitious at the national level. It’s a charged environment, where any action, no matter how innocuous it appears, can be interpreted through a partisan lens.
The most sensible solutions, as others have pointed out, seem to center on minimizing disruption. One reasonable approach could have been to introduce a temporary solution through an amendment or referendum. Voters could decide in advance whether they support the shift, knowing that it would mean an adjustment to the upcoming terms. Alternatively, some suggest shortening or lengthening the *next* term, rather than extending the current officials’ time in office. This would allow for the alignment without violating voter expectations.
The core problem is the lack of public input. Changing the election date is one thing; changing the terms of office without direct consent is entirely different. It creates a perception of self-serving actions, especially when there are alternative methods that could achieve the same goals while respecting the democratic process.
From the perspective of some, aligning local elections with larger elections is a good idea, but how it is carried out is key. Lengthening the terms of the current officials, instead of shortening or lengthening the next term, gives the impression that personal power is more important than a properly run election.
The implications are more widespread than just one city, and there are lessons for many. For example, cities like Chicago are looking to align election schedules, and it could save money and increase turnout. The main takeaway is that solutions must be implemented without alienating the public. This is especially important in a place like South Florida, where any action will face additional scrutiny.