Fact Check: City Attorney cites precedent allowing election date changes via commission vote!
What We Know
The claim that the City Attorney cites precedent allowing election date changes via commission vote is misleading. Recently, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued a formal opinion stating that the City of Miami cannot unilaterally change its election date from November 2025 to 2026 without obtaining voter approval. Uthmeier emphasized that any amendments to the city charter, which includes changing election dates or terms of office for elected officials, must be decided by a vote of the electorate (Miami Herald).
The City of Miami had been relying on a Florida statute that allows municipalities to change election dates via ordinance to align with statewide or countywide elections. However, Uthmeier's opinion clarifies that the city charter requires such changes to be put to a ballot referendum (WLRN). This opinion has sparked significant debate, as it may lead to conflicts between city and state governance (Miami Herald).
Analysis
The reliability of the sources used to assess this claim is high. The opinion from Attorney General Uthmeier is a formal legal document that carries significant weight in determining the legality of the proposed election date change. The Miami Herald and WLRN, both reputable news organizations, reported on the implications of this opinion and the reactions from city officials and candidates.
While the City Attorney's office has suggested that there are precedents where other municipalities have changed election dates via ordinance, such as the City of North Miami, this does not negate Uthmeier's opinion regarding the necessity of voter approval in Miami's case (WLRN). The dissenting opinion from the City Attorney does not hold the same legal authority as the Attorney General's opinion, which is binding unless overturned by a court.
Moreover, the reactions from various city officials, including Commissioner Miguel Angel Gabela and former City Commissioner Ken Russell, reinforce the notion that the proposed change is contentious and viewed as potentially self-serving by incumbents (Miami Herald). The overwhelming sentiment among these officials is that any change to election dates should ultimately be decided by voters, not by a commission vote.
Conclusion
The claim that the City Attorney cites precedent allowing election date changes via commission vote is False. The Florida Attorney General's opinion clearly states that any changes to the election date must be approved by voters, contradicting the assertion that such changes can be made solely through a commission vote. The legal framework established by Uthmeier's opinion emphasizes the importance of voter consent in matters affecting the electoral process, making the claim inaccurate.
