Third DCA seems skeptical of Miami city election change, cancellation

The Third District Court of Appeal hasn’t dropped its ruling yet on whether the City of Miami can just cancel its elections like a bad brunch reservation, but the smart money is on Emilio Gonzalez — the former city manager who sued to undo the shady ordinance that postponed this year’s mayoral race (and two commission contests) until 2026.
Gonzalez wants to run for mayor now, not next year. After all, he’s been campaigning for months. Last week, Miami-Dade Judge Valerie Manno Schurr agreed, ruling the city commission’s change of the election by ordinance without a voter referendum was unconstitutional because it violates both the city and county charters, which trump state law. So, super duper unconstitutional.
Read related: Miami-Dade Judge: Miami Commission can’t cancel election without public vote
In other words: Commissioners cannot just cancel the election because they feel like it. Not even if they say it really fast in legalese. Or hold up props, which is what the city’s hired gun, outside attorney Dwayne Robinson, did in moment of legal theater that would make Shakespeare cringe. Robinson stood there holding two printed copies of the city charter — one from before the election-postponing ordinance passed and one from after — and told the court: “There is no change. There is no amendment. Nothing is repealed.”
Nothing’s changed? Except the whole part where the city commission gave themselves another year in office, moved the election to 2026, and completely ignored the charter’s very clear instruction that elections be held in odd-numbered years. But yeah, nothing’s changed.
Robinson barely made it a minute in before Judge Monica Gordo interrupted with a polite but pointed, “The charter is the city’s constitution, is it not?”
“Why would the commission hang its hat on a permissive state statute when they have a constitution confronting them with a ‘shall,’” Gordo asked, rhetorically because you could tell she already knows the answer is they cannot.
You could almost feel the eye rolls from the bench. And Gordo wasn’t the only one wondering why she was there. Because the city’s legal logic would get laughed out of a mock trial at Jose Marti Middle School.
Judge Kevin Emas seemed frustrated with the city’s argument that, hey, moving an election without voter approval was totally legit and not at all a coup in slow motion. Judge Fleur Lobree seemed bored. She scooped up her documents and notes to leave before the city’s rebuttal was even finished.
Several times Emas made the point that Gonzalez and his attorneys were making: You can’t have a charter and a code that contradict each other and expect this not to end in chaos.
Read related: First lawsuit filed to stop city of Miami from cancelling November election
Attorney Alan Lawson, a former Florida Supreme Court Justice representing González, called the city’s argument “a semantic sleight of hand.” Well, that could describe a lot of discussions at city commission meetings. Basically, Lawson said, if the charter says elections are in odd years, and you pass something that says otherwise, then you’re changing the charter — and you need a referendum. Voters get a say. It’s really not that hard.
“They say, ‘We didn’t amend the charter. The words are still there in the charter,’” Lawson said about the city’s argument. “They say that this is just an alternative means of rule-making in an area historically limited to the referendum process. They say it’s an alternate path.”
And if the commission can take an “alternate path,” why bother with a charter at all?
“Lincoln famously said that you can call a tail a leg but it doesn’t make it so,” Lawson said. What if they call a tail the head?
In other words: saying “we didn’t change the charter, we just ignored part of it” is the legal equivalent of “it’s not cheating if I close one eye.”
Even Miami-Dade County showed up to remind the city that they’re not above the rules. And when the county feels the need to weigh in on how broken your logic is, you know you’ve lost the room. Assistant County Attorney Michael Valdes told the judges that under the Miami-Dade Home Rule Charter — aka our local constitution — changes like this must go to the voters. You’d think that would be obvious to a city with more lawyers than potholes.
The city’s rebuttal? That the charter isn’t a “magic document that cannot be altered unless there’s a referendum.” Oh really? So is it a suggestion box? A pirate map? A mood ring? A souvenir from when there was democracy in Miami?
If it’s not binding, then what is? The whims of three commissioners?
But, you know, a Miami courtroom drama isn’t complete if there’s not a Carollo cameo. And here, there were two.
Frank Carollo watches intently while county attorney Michael Valdes argues the home rule charter trumps state law
Commissioner Joe Carollo wasn’t there Tuesday — but he wanted to be. As if he didn’t have enough legal battles of his own, Carollo — who always wants to be el protagonista — wanted to insert himself into someone else’s courtroom drama. Crazy Joe loves the sound of his own voice. Y como un colado in a quinceañera he wasn’t invited to, Carollo asked the court to let him speak at oral arguments in a case he’s not even a party to.
The Gonzalez legal team told the judges that this was disruptive and that Carollo simply wanted to grandstand. Ya think? The DCA judges — who may have seen Carollo drone on and on and on at commission meetings — told him nananina. They saved themselves.
But his brother was there. Former Commissioner Frank Carollo, who has filed to run again in District 3, sat behind Gonzalez in the audience and looked glum. He later made a comment to the press outside because he doesn’t want Gonzalez to be the only one getting a ton of earned media for suing the city.
Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, was also in the courtroom, in the front row. Suarez is hoping the city prevails so he can have an extra year in office to increase his net worth even more.
Read related: Miami Commissioners pass election date change — and steal an extra year
Observers expect the judges to issue a ruling soon. Ladra is surprised it’s taken them this long because their skepticism was pretty evident at the hearing.
This isn’t about “clarifying” the charter or “modernizing” elections. This is about commissioners handing themselves an extra year in office and hoping no one would notice.
Well, guess what? People noticed.
So did Judge Manno Schurr, and now three appellate judges seem poised to deliver the same message: You want to change an election date? Ask the damn voters.
A ruling is expected soon. Ladra just hopes the city doesn’t try to drag this into extra innings with another appeal. Haven’t we wasted enough taxpayer money already?
The post Third DCA seems skeptical of Miami city election change, cancellation appeared first on Political Cortadito.

Read Full Story