Courts killed Miami commission’s election shuffle, but city wants a do-over

And the legal costs for outside attorneys add up
Miami wants a do-over. After getting spanked twice in court, the city is begging for a third chance.
Who cares if it just burns more taxpayer money?
The city filed an appeal Wednesday of the second court ruling that says the change in election date from odd- to even-numbered years — which would effectively cancel this November’s mayoral and commission races — was unconstitutional and just can’t be done without a vote of the electorate.
City attorneys have argued that state law allows the commission to change the date of the election with three votes. Just like that. But a three-judge panel at the Third District Court of Appeals unanimously agreed July 31 with a lower court judge who said on July 21 that the city ordinance approved in June violated both the city charter and Miami-Dade Home Rule charter that says municipal charter changes need to go to referendum.
No. Can. Do.
Now, Miami wants the whole Third DCA bench of 14 judges, or a selected new and larger panel, to hear the case. In what looks like a full-blown legal tantrum, the motion filed Wednesday basically begs for a rehearing because, well, the three judges who heard the city’s oral arguments and ruled against them just didn’t get it.
Read related: Third DCA strikes down Miami election change; November ballot is on
It’s more likely, given that there was no dissent on the opinion — and the fact that even the city had originally said it wanted this resolved by August 8 — that the Third DCA will decline to rehear the case. But let’s say they’re bored with the other cases and want to liven up their week?
Commissioner Damian Pardo, who sponsored the ordinance that changed the election date and moved the upcoming election to 2026, hasn’t responded to Ladra’s calls and texts. But in statements and in different interviews, Pardo — who said he just wanted to boost voter turnout and save money by aligning the elections with state and federal elections –– seemed to accept the courts’ final say and announced that he would put the question on the ballot in November, like he shoulda in the first place.
Meanwhile, the outside attorney who signed the motion for the rehearing, is charging the city $750 an hour in this case. A contract shows that Dwayne Robinson was hired on July 25 to handle the appeal of Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Valerie Manno Schurr, who said the city pulled a fast one.
“The City’s contention that its Ordinance did not ‘amend’ its City Charter is nothing more than semantic sleight of hand,” Manno Schurr wrote in her ruling. “In one sense, of course, the City is correct, it did not effectuate a permissible amendment to its Charter because the Florida Constitution and Miami-Dade County Charter do not allow the City to amend or repeal its provisions by ordinance. That can only be accomplished with a vote of the electorate, as the Plaintiff correctly contends.”
Deputy City Attorney Eric Eves, who argued the case before Manno Schurr, didn’t even speak during the DCA arguments. He’s been in time-out ever since.
But if that figure seems low for someone of Robinson’s stature, realize that it’s just for his signature. The whole team gets paid $2,350 an hour when they’re working together. And it is a team effort, that even put on a mock trial, according to Robinson’s LinkedIn post from last week. That’s dedication.
Broken down in the contract: partners Charles Throckmorton and Brandon Sadowsky get $700 and $600 an hour, respectively, and paralegal Farola St. Remy gets $300 an hour.
That’s gonna add up.
So are the costs for former City Manager Emilio Gonzalez, who is running for mayor this year, not next year. Gonzalez is the candidate who took on the city all by himself — other mayoral candidates stood on the sidelines and cheered.
“They either want to run out the clock or bankrupt the campaign,” Gonzalez told Political Cortadito.
Read related: First lawsuit filed to stop city of Miami from cancelling November election
Needless to say, the money spent on the lawsuit is totally worth the amount of free earned media that has suddenly put Gonzalez in frontrunner position. So much so, that a poll by Miami-Dade Commissioner Eileen Higgins has her and Gonzalez in the top two spots (more on that later).
In a statement he released Thursday, Gonzalez didn’t hold back:
 “This is not about legal nuance—it’s about an out of control government trying to steal an  election from the people of Miami. The City’s desperate appeals are a blatant attempt to run out  the clock, hoping to prevent the Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections from preparing a ballot.  This isn’t just irresponsible—it’s reprehensible. It’s a coordinated assault on the democratic  rights of our citizens. 
The right to vote is non-negotiable. There is no constitutional loophole here, and we will win this  case every time because the law and justice stand with Miami’s voters. What’s even more  outrageous is that City Hall is using taxpayer dollars to fund this sham. They’ve already  squandered over $5 million defending a commissioner who abused city resources, and now  they’re considering spending another $1.3 million on legal fees for another commissioner—all  while racking up undisclosed costs to fight a fair election. 
Miami’s voters cannot endure another year of this failed leadership. My administration will break  this cycle of corruption and deliver real results for Miami families. We will pursue an aggressive  affordability agenda, reforming property taxes to protect homeowners and putting families first in  every decision. 
This is corruption in plain sight—a disgraceful misuse of public funds and a direct attack on  democracy. The people of Miami deserve better, and this November, they will have their say, no  matter how many games the City Commission tries to play.”
The city says the court completely overlooked two key decisions that should’ve protected the ordinance — a case in Hialeah where a permissive state law trumped a restrictive city charter and another in Miami Springs where the Supreme Court said a state law allowing higher interest rates on bonds could override a city’s more conservative charter limits. But those were in 1981 an 1971, respectively. Seems that for $2,350 an hour, they should be able to find just one precedent from the last 45 years.
These rulings, Robinson wrote, basically say that when state law gives permission, a city can use its charter to block it. Furthermore it can undermine the Florida legislature’s power and set a dangerous precedent that could block state laws from applying to Miami-Dade cities, he argued.
If only.
Read related: Miami-Dade Judge: Miami Commission can’t cancel election without public vote
So, this isn’t just about elections anymore. It’s about power — who has it, who wants to keep it, who wants to take it, and who’s trying to rebrand “election integrity” as a home rule cage match.
Yes, Miami wants more voter turnout. And yes, they probably also want certain incumbents to benefit from a juiced-up and mostly uninformed electorate in 2026. And 2028. And 2030. And so on. But this case has now become a constitutional battle royale between state authority and local autonomy.
The City may say it’s about saving money and boosting democracy, but the lawsuit is dripping with legal anxiety over who gets to make the rules in Florida’s most unruly county. And every city with a dusty charter and a dream of skipping odd-year elections is watching.
Ladra expects the county attorney’s office, which has argued as a party on the Gonzalez side, to chime in any minute now.
City of Miami Agreement Appeal Legal Counsel by Political Cortadito on Scribd

 
City of Miami Motion for Rehearing at 3rd DCA by Political Cortadito on Scribd

The post Courts killed Miami commission’s election shuffle, but city wants a do-over appeared first on Political Cortadito.

Read Full Story