Proposal to cancel Miami's November election, push it to 2026 passes first vote
The city of Miami has moved one step closer to postponing the upcoming November election without voter input.
On Tuesday night, the Miami City Commission voted 3-2 in favor of switching the city from odd- to even-year elections, pushing forward a proposal that entails moving the November election to 2026 and giving the city's current elected officials an extra year in office — including those who will have reached their term limits.
The yes votes were Commissioner Damian Pardo — the item's sponsor — as well as Commissioners Ralph Rosado and Christine King. Commissioners Miguel Angel Gabela and Joe Carollo voted no.
The proposal must pass a second City Commission vote to become official. It's slated to come back at next week's meeting on June 26.
Pardo has the support of Mayor Francis Suarez, who has been lobbying behind the scenes to push the legislation through. Suarez has veto power but does not have a vote on the City Commission.
The circumstances are such that Rosado — whom Suarez supported in his special election earlier this month — voted to give himself an extra year in office during his first meeting as a Miami city commissioner.
Pardo's proposal has faced pushback from Florida officials.
Last week, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued a written opinion saying the city does not have the legal authority to move the election without voter approval. Gov. Ron DeSantis weighed in on social media, saying that 'city of Miami politicians do not have the authority to cancel this year's elections and extend their terms in office without voter approval.'
In response to Uthmeier's opinion, City Attorney George Wysong issued an opinion last week in which he cited Florida law to argue that the city has the authority to move the election date via a City Commission vote.
Pardo has pointed to two Miami-Dade cities that have done so already: North Miami and Coral Gables. Commissioners in North Miami extended their terms, while Gables commissioners voted to shorten their terms.
At Tuesday's meeting, several people spoke in favor of moving the city to even-year elections, describing it as a 'common sense' solution to raising the city's paltry voter turnout, which typically hovers between 10% to 15%.
'You will hear a lot about the extra year in office, and that is far from ideal,' downtown resident Steven Smith said. However, he described it as a 'sacrifice' worth making.
Others expressed concern — particularly about the prospect of the extra year for elected officials.
Resident Xiani Cox supported moving to even years but 'only if it's done right.'
Cox described this particular proposal as 'stealing an extra year.'
'It's a power grab dressed up as reform,' Cox said. 'Voters elected you for four years ... not five. Canceling the 2025 elections without a public vote is a direct attack on our democracy, and it's unethical and an abuse of power.'
Miami pollster Fernand Amandi commended Pardo for his efforts toward reform but said it was 'indefensible' to cancel an election without voter consent.
'I find myself in the unfamiliar position today where I wholeheartedly agree with Governor DeSantis and Attorney General Uthmeier, and even Commissioner Joe Carollo,' he said.
The commission also advanced another proposal from Pardo that's related to his push to change the election date.
That proposal, which would create lifetime term limits for elected officials, also passed a City Commission vote 3-2 on Tuesday — but with a different makeup than the election date change vote.
Pardo, Gabela and Rosado voted in favor of sending the term limits proposal to voters, while Carollo and King voted against. The change needs to come back to the commission for a second vote, after which point it will be sent to voters as a ballot referendum.
That means it will ultimately be up to voters to decide whether the city should limit elected officials to two terms as city commissioner and two terms as mayor for their entire lifetime. It will also, however, be subjected to campaigning efforts by those invested in keeping the city's term limits as-is. Currently, elected officials in Miami must leave office after two terms but can run again after sitting out a term.
The term limits proposal is connected to the election date change proposal because it clears the way for term limits to get voted on ahead of the city's next municipal election. Assuming the even-year election change gets commissioners' approval in a second, final vote on June 26, that means there would be a special election in November to ask voters about lifetime term limits, while the general election to select a mayor, a District 3 commissioner and a District 5 commissioner would be held in November 2026.
If voters approve the lifetime term limits, that legislation would block Suarez from seeking elected office in Miami again.
It would also block Carollo from office since he has already served at least two terms as both mayor and a commissioner, and it would keep his younger brother, former two-term City Commissioner Frank Carollo, from running for the City Commission again. Frank Carollo has already filed to run for the District 3 City Commission seat — currently occupied by his brother — and Joe Carollo has long been mulling another run for mayor.
If the general election remained scheduled for November 2025, that could create legal roadblocks because the term limits proposal would be on the same ballot as candidates who would be affected by it, like Frank Carollo.
Joe Carollo has argued that Pardo's proposals are designed to block him from becoming mayor, while Pardo has said that he's not targeting anybody.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge blocks Trump effort to keep Harvard from hosting foreign students
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration's efforts to keep Harvard University from hosting international students, delivering the Ivy League school another victory as it challenges multiple government sanctions amid a battle with the White House. The order from U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston preserves Harvard's ability to host foreign students while the case is decided, but it falls short of resolving all of Harvard's legal hurdles to hosting international students. Notably, Burroughs said the federal government still has authority to review Harvard's ability to host international students through normal processes outlined in law. Harvard sued the Department of Homeland Security in May after the agency abruptly withdrew the school's certification to host foreign students and issue paperwork for their visas, skirting most of its usual procedures. The action would have forced Harvard's roughly 7,000 international students — about a quarter of its total enrollment — to transfer or risk being in the U.S. illegally. New foreign students would have been barred from coming to Harvard. The university said it was experiencing illegal retaliation for rejecting the White House's demands to overhaul Harvard policies related to campus protests, admissions, hiring and more. Burroughs temporarily had halted the government's action hours after Harvard sued. Less than two weeks later, in early June, President Donald Trump tried a new strategy. He issued a proclamation to block foreign students from entering the U.S. to attend Harvard, citing a different legal justification. Harvard challenged the move, saying the president was attempting an end-run around the temporary court order. Burroughs temporarily blocked Trump's proclamation as well. That emergency block remains in effect, and Burroughs did not address the proclamation in her order Friday. 'We expect the judge to issue a more enduring decision in the coming days,' Harvard said Friday in an email to international students. 'Our Schools will continue to make contingency plans toward ensuring that our international students and scholars can pursue their academic work to the fullest extent possible, should there be a change to student visa eligibility or their ability to enroll at Harvard.' Students in limbo The stops and starts of the legal battle have unsettled current students and left others around the world waiting to find out whether they will be able to attend America's oldest and wealthiest university. The Trump administration's efforts to stop Harvard from enrolling international students have created an environment of 'profound fear, concern, and confusion,' the university said in a court filing. Countless international students have asked about transferring from the university, Harvard immigration services director Maureen Martin said. Still, admissions consultants and students have indicated most current and prospective Harvard scholars are holding out hope they'll be able to attend the university. For one prospective graduate student, an admission to Harvard's Graduate School of Education had rescued her educational dreams. Huang, who asked to be identified only by her surname for fear of being targeted, had seen her original doctoral offer at Vanderbilt University rescinded after federal cuts to research and programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion. Harvard stepped in a few weeks later with a scholarship she couldn't refuse. She rushed to schedule her visa interview in Beijing. More than a month after the appointment, despite court orders against the Trump administration's policies, she still hasn't heard back. 'Your personal effort and capability means nothing in this era,' Huang said in a social media post. 'Why does it have to be so hard to go to school?' An ongoing battle Trump has been warring with Harvard for months after the university rejected a series of government demands meant to address conservative complaints that the school has become too liberal and has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Trump officials have cut more than $2.6 billion in research grants, ended federal contracts and threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. On Friday, the president said in a post on Truth Social that the administration has been working with Harvard to address 'their largescale improprieties" and that a deal with Harvard could be announced within the next week. 'They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right,' Trump's post said. Trump's administration first targeted Harvard's international students in April. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded that Harvard turn over a trove of records related to any dangerous or illegal activity by foreign students. Harvard says it complied, but Noem said the response fell short and on May 22 revoked Harvard's certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. The sanction immediately put Harvard at a disadvantage as it competed for the world's top students, the school said in its lawsuit, and it harmed Harvard's reputation as a global research hub. 'Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,' the lawsuit said. The action would have upended some graduate schools that recruit heavily from abroad. Some schools overseas quickly offered invitations to Harvard's students, including two universities in Hong Kong. Harvard President Alan Garber previously said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism. But Harvard, he said, will not stray from its 'core, legally-protected principles,' even after receiving federal ultimatums. ___ Collin Binkley has covered Harvard for nearly a decade — most of the time living half a mile from campus. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Collin Binkley And Albee Zhang, The Associated Press
Fox News
26 minutes ago
- Fox News
Issa floats constitutional amendment to let Congress, SCOTUS remove president after Biden health 'cover-up'
Rep. Darrell Issa on Friday suggested that the House should consider taking up a constitutional amendment to make it easier to remove a president who is unable to perform the job in response to the alleged cover-up of former President Joe Biden's declining mental state. Issa, R-Calif., who is a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said that actions taken by Biden administration officials to keep Americans in the dark about his health show that the provisions in the 25th Amendment may be insufficient. That amendment allows the Vice President and the Cabinet to remove a president from his role if he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." "The initiation was always intended to be the vice president and the cabinet based on the assumption that they would take their oath and their observation seriously and that they were closest to the president to know if that event was needed," Issa told Fox News. "It now looks as though their impartiality can be questioned." Issa added: "If that's the case, the other two branches need to be brought in in some way into the process of asserting that the president may be unable to perform his duties and determining that in a fair and, if necessary, public way." The other two branches in this case would likely be Congress and the Supreme Court. Issa's comments come as the House Oversight Committee is set to interview three Biden administration officials next week about the former president's decline. Former Domestic Policy Council Director Neera Tanden will meet with the committee Tuesday. Former Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the First Lady Anthony Bernthal will meet with the committee Thursday. Former White House Physician Dr. Kevin O'Connor will testify under subpoena on Friday. The committee also has interviews scheduled with former administration officials Annie Tomasini and Ashley Williams. And it's seeking interviews with several officials in the Biden inner circle, including former Chief of Staff Ron Klain and former Senior Advisor to the President for Communications Anita Dunn. Also among the questions investigators will have is whether any Biden officials used the autopen to authorize executive actions without the president's permission. The results of that investigation, according to Issa, could help inform exactly how to write this potential constitutional amendment. "What Chairman Comer is doing is extremely important because he's basically doing the fact-finding for the Judiciary Committee, which is going to undoubtedly take up a possible amendment to the 25th Amendment," Issa said. There is a very high threshold to amend the Constitution – a two-thirds vote in each chamber and ratification by three-quarters of states. So, if an amendment does materialize from the Judiciary Committee, it would face a tough road to make it through Congress, even with unified Republican control. But Issa says it's worth making an effort to improve the system. "Since it didn't work, we have to ask, is there another way to make it work better in the future?" he asked.
Washington Post
28 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump says Gabbard was 'wrong' about Iran and Israeli strikes could be 'very hard to stop'
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Friday that his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard , was 'wrong' when she previously said that the U.S. believed Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon, and he suggested that it would be 'very hard to stop' Israel's strikes on Iran in order to negotiate a possible ceasefire.
