By the Coral Gables Gazette editorial board
A Miami judge’s ruling this week struck a blow not only to the City of Miami’s election changes but also, by implication, to those of Coral Gables. Though the details differ, the core legal principle is the same: altering election dates—and thereby modifying the terms of elected officials—requires voter approval.
In Miami, the change extended terms. In Coral Gables, it shortens them. But in both cases, commissions voted unilaterally to enact those changes without a referendum. The court in Miami found that unconstitutional. Coral Gables should take note.
The Coral Gables City Commission would be wise to revisit its May decision to move the next municipal election from April 2027 to November 2026. The ruling by Judge Valerie Manno Schurr makes clear that term length is a constitutional matter—and one that, under Florida law, may only be altered with the consent of the governed.
The legal distinction between extending and shortening terms will no doubt be explored if (or likely when) Coral Gables ends up in court. But the essence of the Miami ruling rests on a more foundational premise: democratic legitimacy. When voters elect someone to a term of defined length, any deviation from that contract—longer or shorter—requires their consent. That principle is as much about process as outcome.
We understand the good-faith reasons some city leaders offered for moving the election date. Aligning with statewide and federal elections in November may indeed increase turnout. It may reduce costs. It may even generate greater civic awareness. These are serious arguments, and they deserve public debate. But even well-intentioned reforms must follow constitutional rules. The ends do not justify the means.
We also acknowledge that there is genuine division in the community on this issue. In June, a Gazette reader poll showed a near-even split: 50.7 percent favored the change; 47.9 percent opposed it. Among the concerns cited by opponents were fears of increased partisanship, ballooning campaign costs, and the drowning out of local issues on a crowded general election ballot.
These concerns reflect more than ideological preference. They speak to the values of small-city governance: accessibility, clarity, and local focus. In Coral Gables, civic life has long been defined by those traits. For many residents, the fear is not just about changing dates—it is about weakening that legacy.
These are valid points, and they deserve to be heard in a public vote. Let the people decide—not just on the merits of the new schedule, but on the precedent it sets. Democracy is not served when fundamental questions are resolved through narrow 3–2 votes.
Commissioner Melissa Castro, who opposed the change and was later censured for criticizing her colleagues’ actions, has vowed to reintroduce legislation referring the issue to the voters. If her proposal is blocked, she has suggested she may appeal to the governor. But Coral Gables does not need outside intervention to do what is right. It needs leadership.
Mayor Vince Lago and Commissioners Rhonda Anderson and Richard Lara have a choice. They can defend their earlier vote and test its legality in court—an expensive and polarizing course. Or they can pivot, embrace the moment, and offer residents a say. The latter would not be an admission of wrongdoing. It would be a gesture of democratic confidence.
If the commission does not act, a lawsuit is likely. And if that happens, Coral Gables could find itself compelled to hold a vote in 2027 anyway—under court order. Why wait? Why risk invalidating a future election?
This editorial is a call for resolution. The City of Coral Gables has always prided itself on orderly governance, civic engagement, and fidelity to the law. Now is the time to uphold that legacy.
Let the voters decide. Not just because the courts might require it. But because it is the right thing to do.
This Post Has 6 Comments
You mean like in a Democracy?
Yes, Coral Gables needs leadership. Honest, ethical leadership that looks out for the residents’ best interests and follows the rules. Ignoring the City Charter in order to manipulate a change in election dates, is not in the residents’ best interests:
Triggering a lawsuit, which will be expensive for the city, but the money won’t come out of the disgraceful three commissioners’ pockets, is not in the City’s best interests.
It’s become a bully mentality. They have the votes and feel they can ignore the City Charter.
When will doing the right thing become the right thing to do, here in Coral Gables?
Mayor Lago, Vice-Mayor Anderson and Commissioner Lara (“LAL”) each took an Oath of Office (City Code Section 2-247) to support, protect and defend the Florida Constitution and the Coral Gables Charter. LAL’s ILLEGAL POWER GRAB to eliminate the required resident vote to amend our Charter violates their Oath which is why Governor DeSantis should remove them from office per Florida law. LAL also repeatedly violates their Oath by failing to represent and serve with fairness, integrity and civility in all actions and communications with their colleagues and with residents.
The most troubling thing is that LAL is causing Coral Gables to be used by Mayor Francis Suarez in his attempt to extend his term by one year without any vote of electors. Coral Gables is referenced with the City of North Miami on page 2 of the City of Miami’s appellate brief as the only other cities in Miami-Dade County that moved their election without a resident vote. LAL’s illegal action (and the “opinion” by the Coral Gables City Attorney) was also referenced by the Miami City Attorney in his oral argument before Judge Manno Schurr. The City of Miami claimed it moved its election via ordinance based on what LAL illegally did. Why has LAL allowed Coral Gables to be a tool of Mayor Suarez?!? Maybe it is another campaign promise that they must keep. I wish we had elected officials who cared more about our right to vote than their friendship and devotion to Mayor Suarez.
Lago and Suarez are in cahoots with one another. That’s why Lago had the commission vote to support other municipalities in the state of Florida (the entire state!!!) who might have lawsuits filed against them. Anderson moved the motion and Lara seconded it. The three disgraceful commissioners have no regard for what that could cost the city, but hold fast to the fable that moving elections will save the city’s residents hundreds of thousands of dollars. Talk about being two-faced!
Don’t spend a dime defending this and just revert back to what we had. What do we have a city attorney for? To advise prior to actions? To defend these cases without additional expense for outside counsel? Or is pushing the envelope till it falls from the desk the modus operandi? The Keystone cops are running the city.
The oral argument was held this morning before Judges Emas, Lobree and Gordo of the Third District Court of Appeal in the City of Miami’s appeal of Judge Manno Schurr’s Summary Judgment Order providing that amending a Charter via ordinance without a vote of electors is illegal and unconstitutional. It did not go well for the City of Miami based on substantial existing precedent that a Charter (which is our constitution) overrides an ordinance and can only be amended by a vote of electors pursuant to the Florida Constitution, the Miami-Dade County Charter and the municipal charter. The City of Miami’s attorney again used the illegal action of LAL (Lago Anderson Lara) in Coral Gables Ordinance 2025-08 to support Mayor Francis Suarez’s illegal attempt to change the City of Miami’s charter to extend his term. Mayor Lago convened a special meeting on May 6 for a first reading of his illegal ordinance violating existing rule of law as explained in Judge Manno Schurr’s Summary Judgment as well as in Florida Attorney General Opinion 2025-01. Hopefully, Mayor Lago will convene another special meeting to repeal LAL’s illegal ordinance. Each day of delay is another day that LAL violates their Oath of Office and City Code Section 2-247 and betrays residents’ exclusive right to vote to amend our Charter in LAL’s power grab.