By Coral Gables Gazette staff
A Miami-Dade Circuit Court ruling striking down the City of Miami’s attempt to change its municipal election calendar without voter approval is raising new legal questions about a similar decision the Coral Gables City Commission made earlier this year.
In a decision issued Monday, Judge Valerie Manno Schurr ruled that Miami’s effort to delay its 2025 municipal election until 2026 by commission ordinance was unconstitutional because it extended the terms of sitting elected officials without voter consent. The ruling followed a legal challenge brought by Miami mayoral candidate Emilio González, who called the decision “a triumph for all voters in the City of Miami and across Miami-Dade County.”
Though Coral Gables’ case differs in its particulars—the city moved its next municipal election from April 2027 to November 2026, thereby shortening rather than extending elected terms—the method was the same: a 3–2 commission vote in May that enacted the change by ordinance without a public referendum.
Parallel legal concerns in Coral Gables
That procedural parallel is fueling renewed concerns among critics who argue that the Gables’ ordinance may also violate the Florida Constitution. Chief among them is Commissioner Melissa Castro, who has consistently opposed the change and warned of potential litigation.
“This court ruling confirms what I’ve said from day one: changing our elections without voter approval is unconstitutional,” Castro told the Gazette after learning of the Miami decision. “While Mayor Vince Lago, Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson, and Commissioner Richard Lara voted to sue the State and trample on your right to vote, I stood alone in defense of our democracy and now the court agrees.”
At the July 1 City Commission meeting, Castro again urged her colleagues to rescind the ordinance and refer the election date change to voters in a formal referendum. She also sought a legal opinion from Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier on the matter. Instead of reconsidering, the commission voted to censure her—a motion supported by Lago, Anderson and Lara. Commissioner Ariel Fernandez was absent due to medical reasons.
Despite the rebuke, Castro said the judge’s ruling in Miami has strengthened her resolve. “I will once again introduce legislation to bring Coral Gables into compliance with the court ruling,” she said. “If the commission continues to resist, I won’t hesitate to take it further, even if it means appealing directly to the governor.”
The Gazette also reached out to Anderson and Lara for comment but had not received a response as of publication.
City attorney defends ordinance’s legality
Reached for comment on Monday’s Miami ruling, the Gazette did not receive a response from Coral Gables City Attorney Cristina Suarez by publication time. However, in a June statement to the Gazette, Suarez defended the ordinance as lawful.
“The City of Coral Gables acted within its legal authority in changing the date of its municipal elections by ordinance,” she wrote. “This change, adopted to align our local election cycle with federal and state elections, is authorized by Florida Statutes. We are confident that the ordinance adopted by the City Commission is legally valid.”
The Coral Gables ordinance moves city elections from April in odd-numbered years—typically low-turnout, stand-alone contests—to the November ballot in even-numbered years, alongside state and federal races. Proponents say the move could significantly increase turnout and reduce costs. Critics argue that bypassing a public vote on the matter undermines democratic norms. A Gazette reader poll last month revealed sharp divide over the timing of Coral Gables elections.
Legal storm clouds gather
Even before Monday’s ruling, Coral Gables officials anticipated potential legal challenges. In July, the commission passed a resolution—introduced by Lago and supported by Anderson and Lara—to support other Florida cities facing lawsuits for changing their elections without referendums. That motion signaled both a recognition of possible litigation and a show of political solidarity with similarly situated municipalities.
Whether Coral Gables will face its own legal challenge remains to be seen. The city has not yet been sued, but sources close to the issue say local advocacy groups and concerned residents are evaluating their options.
The ruling in Miami also raises a more philosophical question: Should cities be able to change their election calendars without direct voter input, even if state law arguably permits it? Judge Manno Schurr’s decision suggests that voter consent may be a constitutional requirement when such changes affect term lengths.
Looking ahead
As the fallout from Monday’s ruling unfolds, the Coral Gables Commission may soon have to decide whether to double down on its legal defense—or reverse course and seek voter approval retroactively.
For Castro, the path forward is clear: “Their decision to waste taxpayer dollars in a lawsuit to suppress the will of the people was shameful,” she said. “I will continue standing firmly on the side of the law, transparency, and most importantly, the people.”
This Post Has 13 Comments
Very speculative article. The US follows the English law. It is illegal for members of parliament to extend their stay in power without voter consent. On the other hand, they can call for early elections anytime. In Miami, they tried to extend their time in power. In Coral Gables, they are trying to shorten their time in power. Big difference. You may want to stick to reporting facts, and not promote your political biases.
Did the voters elect to change the Election date to November? NO! Period. End of story.
King Lago is not for the people of Coral Gables.
If you would read without prejudice, you will clearly find the legal reasoning being that it EXTENDED the term of the officials without voter approval. Why are you so against the city saving money?
It would be perfectly reasonable for a person who supports Commissioner Castro and/or Commissioner Fernandez to be opposed to other members of the commission shortening their term.
A big difference between Coral Gables local election date change versus the change to the Miami Dade elections is the idea that they are EXTENDING their term of office without voter approval. That is illegal. The Coral Gables local election change will SHORTEN their term of office by several months. Although the voters in Coral Gables were not asked if they wanted to change the local elections from April 2027 to November 2026, by doing so, the city will save thousands of taxpayer dollars. To me, this proves that Mayor
Lago and the majority of the City Commission ARE very much for the people!
Let’s talk about the savings. Ordinance 2025-08 stated that the general election in April costs $125,000 but would only cost $20,000 if held in November. The runoff election also costs $125,000 and that would be the same cost for a runoff election in early December (4 weeks rather than 2 weeks after the general election with campaigning over Thanksgiving holidays). So, the $105,000 savings per election is $57,500 per year. The 10-minute 4th of July drone show (attended mostly by non-residents) costs $65,000 (see page 16 of the Budget Estimate 2025-2026). The “cost savings” is the same promise to cut property taxes made by Mayor Lago and Commissioner Lara during the election that they broke once elected and voted to increase property taxes (keeping the same millage rate with increasing property value causes homestead residents to pay an additional 3% in property taxes). We have a majority of Commissioners who raise our taxes, approve illegal action and ignore our constitutional right to vote. And the people who are happy are only 16.5% of electors and 11% of residents (55% of the 30% who voted cast a vote for Lago and only 65% of residents are registered voters).
Let’s hope that our elected officials have learned from past
“Errors” and do not follow through with their “idea” to join anyone who files a lawsuit about the elections. We, the residents wouldn’t be surprised because our City is known for hiring outside consultants! Of course we are the ones left holding the bag when the City loses in court. Remember WAWA, styrofoam, plastic bags, etc……………
If you would read without prejudice, you will clearly find the legal reasoning being that it EXTENDED the term of the officials without voter approval. Why are you so opposed to the city saving money?
Regardless of the final outcome, this validates Commissioner Castro asking the question about the legality of changing the Coral Gables election date without voter approval.
Mr. Santos – as I said repeatedly (and as stated by Judge Manno Schurr and the Florida Attorney General in AGO 2025-01 based on extensive rule of law), the Commission has no right via ordinance to amend our Charter. That right exclusively belongs to the electors. The Commission’s only right is to propose a referendum per Section 10 of our Charter for electors to consider. Sections 1 and 1.1 of our Charter provide the length of term and date of local elections. If Mayor Lago, Vice-Mayor Anderson and Commission Lara (“LAL”) desire to keep their promise to move our election, then propose a referendum for residents to vote. With LAL’s ability to raise significant money from developers and their purported “mandate”, I have no idea why LAL is afraid of residents voting. We already have a referendum set for November, 2026 to consider the inspector general (something that the Charter Review Committee already did but LAL is trying to ignore CRC’s existing work and the residents who attended 2 townhall meetings and submitted comments). And there are several Florida Supreme Court cases providing that only the vote of electors can shorten the term of elected officials.
Carlos E. – Judge Manno Schurr did not use “without prejudice” in her Summary Judgment Order. But she did state why Judge Reemberto Diaz in the 2023 City of North Miami case dismissed a request for injunctive relief to stop the election date change via ordinance – Miami-Dade County was an indispensable party that was not added to the lawsuit (see page 3 of his opinion). I am opposed to elected officials illegally stealing our right to vote. If the electors vote to amend the Charter to shorten the term of elected officials or change the date of local elections, then I can live with the result – we live in a democracy until some elected officials prevent us from voting on this important issue.
Travesty again by Politicos for the Citizens . Ha ha ha ! Lago , Anderson and now Lara will waste our tax dollars defending an ordinace that was not apporve by
the voters. Arrogance a quality the commisison adopts on every front including Castro and Airel is shameful. disrectpecful.
Voters goes to speak in front of these…..they know how to quiet your voice by rediculing in front of an audience after all it is their circus and we are the train masses that vote for theseClown!
If I vote for a candidate to serve her full term, are you telling me three members on the Commission can disallow or dilute my vote by cutting my candidate’s term without the public’s approval? Under your reasoning, if the three Commissioners don’t like the newly elected candidate, can they vote to have an early election within six months in an attempt to get her voted out?
Illegally violating the City Charter is illegal. That’s pretty clear.
But the three commissioners who voted to change the election date don’t give a hoot about what the City Charter states, unless it’s to their benefit.
All the excuses in the world don’t change the facts.
Ignoring the City Charter and disbanding the Charter Review Committee are just more of the perceived entitlement and perceived “mandate” that the disgraceful three are using to steamroll over the rights of the residents.