Miami cancels November election, postpones it to 2026

Hercules Rockefeller

Woof!
Hercules Rockefeller
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
4,504

On Thursday, the Miami City Commission voted 3-2 to move the city from odd- to even-year elections — a change that its proponents said will drastically increase voter turnout. But the decision also comes with fine print. As a result, the city’s elected officials will get an extra year in office. That includes Mayor Francis Suarez and Commissioner Joe Carollo, who are both term limited. Suarez, a former city commissioner, will get a 17th consecutive year in Miami City Hall, and Carollo will get a ninth.
Click to expand...

Trial run for the 2026 midterm Elections?
 
They can't change the federal elections, that's in the Constitu--

Sorry, I forgot we're in 2025.
 
Hercules Rockefeller said:
It's a symptom of one. I think the reps. are gearing up for all sorts of shenanigans next year. What will they be able to get away with in '26 with Trumps support?
Click to expand...
It seems like a problem for this idea that the commissioner who proposed the change isn't obviously aligned with Republicans (city election in Miami are nonpartisan, but he's a gay rights activist opposed to measures you'd expect Republicans in 2025 to support). The reasons given for moving the election are persuasive, and there's no way to move from odd to even years without somebody getting a longer or shorter term than they otherwise would. The fact that the (Republican) Florida AG has issued an opinion that the city doesn't have the power to do this without a referendum is pretty clear evidence that the Republicans are not a united front on this issue. That doesn't look like a test case for 2026.

A plausible argument could be made that eliminating midterm elections and changing the length of terms of representatives and senators to 4 and 8 years respectively would be a good move to increase turnout, but there's no reason this would require elections to be postponed, and it would require a constitutional amendment. I don't see any reason to imagine Republicans would be able to get away with this.
 
mumblethrax said:
It seems like a problem for this idea that the commissioner who proposed the change isn't obviously aligned with Republicans (city election in Miami are nonpartisan, but he's a gay rights activist opposed to measures you'd expect Republicans in 2025 to support). The reasons given for moving the election are persuasive, and there's no way to move from odd to even years without somebody getting a longer or shorter term than they otherwise would. The fact that the (Republican) Florida AG has issued an opinion that the city doesn't have the power to do this without a referendum is pretty clear evidence that the Republicans are not a united front on this issue. That doesn't look like a test case for 2026.

A plausible argument could be made that eliminating midterm elections and changing the length of terms of representatives and senators to 4 and 8 years respectively would be a good move to increase turnout, but there's no reason this would require elections to be postponed, and it would require a constitutional amendment. I don't see any reason to imagine Republicans would be able to get away with this.
Click to expand...

Switching from odd to even years shouldn't be a problem, but extending your term this close to the end is. If the previous election had been held on the understanding that a voting majority were going to put this forward then it might be justified. A better way to have done it, if they believed in the principal would have been to cut their terms short by a year and faced the voters last November.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Switching from odd to even years shouldn't be a problem, but extending your term this close to the end is. If the previous election had been held on the understanding that a voting majority were going to put this forward then it might be justified. A better way to have done it, if they believed in the principal would have been to cut their terms short by a year and faced the voters last November.
Click to expand...
There's definitely room for improvement, but it's pretty far from an authoritarian power grab, and not an obvious herald of things to come in 2026.
 
mumblethrax said:
There's definitely room for improvement, but it's pretty far from an authoritarian power grab, and not an obvious herald of things to come in 2026.
Click to expand...

Giving yourself an extra 25% term beyond the legally proscribed term IS troublesome, especially when the opposite option was avaliable (or shortening the next term). I can't think of many historical examples where people who unilaterally changed the rules to keep themselves in power turned out to be the Good guys, but yeah, maybe they're the exception.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Giving yourself an extra 25% term beyond the legally proscribed term IS troublesome, especially when the opposite option was avaliable (or shortening the next term). I can't think of many historical examples where people who unilaterally changed the rules to keep themselves in power turned out to be the Good guys, but yeah, maybe they're the exception.
Click to expand...
North Miami did the same thing in 2023, except there it was a 50% increase in term.

Bloomberg and the NYC council did something similar in extending term limits, overriding a voter referendum.

Not to endorse those moves, but I don't think they're the stuff of villainy.
 
mumblethrax said:
North Miami did the same thing in 2023, except there it was a 50% increase in term.

Bloomberg and the NYC council did something similar in extending term limits, overriding a voter referendum.

Not to endorse those moves, but I don't think they're the stuff of villainy.
Click to expand...

I don't think they're necessarily the stuff of villainy, but they present the opportunity for it and I would trust people more who given the choice limited, rather than expanded their power unilaterally.
 
Honestly a shorter term seems more disenfranchising than a longer term. If we're going to make such a change, I'd prefer to do it with a term extension every time, regardless of party.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Giving yourself an extra 25% term beyond the legally proscribed term IS troublesome, especially when the opposite option was avaliable (or shortening the next term). I can't think of many historical examples where people who unilaterally changed the rules to keep themselves in power turned out to be the Good guys, but yeah, maybe they're the exception.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that lengthening the term is (at least to some degree) cheaper to the taxpayer than shortening the term. (After all, you don't need to hold an election earlier than originally planned with all the associated costs, don't have to worry about transition costs for the winners, etc.)

(Not that I am saying "cancel all elections to save taxpayers money", but if the choice is between extending or shortening a term, there are reasons why extending it makes sense, over and above "power grab".)
 
Segnosaur said:
Keep in mind that lengthening the term is (at least to some degree) cheaper to the taxpayer than shortening the term. (After all, you don't need to hold an election earlier than originally planned with all the associated costs, don't have to worry about transition costs for the winners, etc.)
Click to expand...
I agree with this. In Australia we have 4 year terms for state governments and six for federal senators. Yet the Federal House of Representatives has only 3 years, not only adding to costs but also giving incoming governments a relative short time to implement policies.

But changing this would mean a referendum to change the constitution, which will never happen.
 
theprestige said:
Honestly a shorter term seems more disenfranchising than a longer term. If we're going to make such a change, I'd prefer to do it with a term extension every time, regardless of party.
Click to expand...
I think it would be less of a risk of office-holders pursuing personal advantage if such changes in terms were enacted to take effect after the next elections, so it would affect the next holders-of-office, not themselves.
 
I'll ask a former Miami Council person I know. That being said, the reasoning is sound, even years will coincide with national elections which will likely increase turnout. And as noted by lionking, likely decreasing costs.

ETA, that being said, Miami is relatively notorious for its not exactly uncorrupt politics.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I think it would be less of a risk of office-holders pursuing personal advantage if such changes in terms were enacted to take effect after the next elections, so it would affect the next holders-of-office, not themselves.
Click to expand...
I just don't see it as a big risk.

I mean, sure, you could write a cracking good political thriller, along the lines of needing an extra half term to close the land deal, pay off your loan shark, and retire to Belize before your sins catch up with you.

People in this thread are imagining what if there is a political thriller here, and we just don't know about it.

Whatever it is, I'm sure it's not that thrilling. Honestly I'm a little bit disappointed that we're not getting a political thriller. Just partisan headcanon cosplaying as truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom