JAMES KING—In December 2025, Democratic candidate Eileen Higgins recently defeated Republican candidate Emilio Gonzalez in a runoff election, becoming the next Mayor of Miami. This seat was previously held by Francis Suarez who was barred from seeking reelection due to term limits. Higgins’ victory was historic because she became the first woman to serve as Miami’s mayor and the first Democrat to hold the office in nearly three decades. Her pragmatic and policy-driven campaign resonated with local voters, as she received a plurality in the first round of voting and secured a roughly sixty percent vote share in the runoff round. With her policy agenda underway and voters turning their attention toward the midterms, it is worth recalling the high-profile political battle that preceded the election and nearly reshaped Miami’s mayoral system.
On June 26, 2025, the Miami City Commission passed an ordinance that would immediately move the City’s general municipal elections from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years, aligning itself with state and county midterm elections. Supporters of the ordinance argued that this change would increase voter turnout.
However, this change was met with widespread criticism. For one, the election for mayor and multiple city commissioners was only a couple months away, meaning those seats would receive an additional year in office when they would otherwise have to face an election. Second, Miami’s City Charter requires that municipal elections be held on odd-numbered years, where the passed ordinance effectively amended that provision unilaterally and without voter approval. This was problematic, given that Miami-Dade’s County Charter sates that municipal charter amendments may only occur through voter referendum.
Newly appointed Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier instructed the City of Miami government to “stand down,” calling the ordinance an “unconstitutional deviation,” and Governor DeSantis likewise stated that the measure “runs afoul of term limits.” However, no one was more outspokenly critical of the measure than Emilio Gonzalez, the premier Republican candidate in Miami’s mayoral race. The Trump-backed candidate described the ordinance as a power grab that is “reminiscent of regimes in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, or Cuba.”
The runner-up mayoral candidate subsequently filed suit against the City, asserting that the ordinance “unconstitutionally bypassed the democratic will of the people in a way that the Florida Constitution, the Miami-Dade Charter, and the City’s Charter expressly prohibit.” The trial court agreed with Gonzalez, and the City promptly appealed. Facing the pressure of a rapidly approaching election, the Third District Court of Appeal issued an unusually accelerated decision within a month, affirming the trial court’s decision and preserving the imminent election timeline. Setting aside the political infighting, City of Miami v. Emilio Tomas Gonzalez renews a discussion of Miami-Dade County’s unique Home Rule Charter and the constitutional limits imposed on municipalities
In 1956, as Miami’s rapid growth demanded a more flexible system of local governance, Florida voters approved the Home Rule Amendment, granting Miami-Dade County unique authority to structure its own county government, including exclusive control over the creation and governance of municipalities, among other enumerated powers. In accordance with this constitutional grant of authority, Miami-Dade County adopted a Home Rule Charter incorporating many of these enumerated powers. Most notably, when expressly authorized by the Home Rule Amendment, Miami-Dade’s charter and ordinances may conflict with state law that would otherwise preempt local regulations.
While Miami-Dade County possesses several enumerated grants of authority concerning municipalities, the one most relevant to City of Miami v. Emilio Tomas Gonzalez is its capacity to adopt a “method by which each municipal corporation in Dade County shall have the power to . . . amend . . . its own charter.” Pursuant to that authority, Miami-Dade County established a charter amendment procedure requiring approval by voter referendum as the exclusive method. Accordingly, the City’s unilateral change from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years explains Gonzalez’s contention and the Third District’s agreement that the Ordinance violates the Florida Constitution, the Miami-Dade Charter, and the City’s Charter.
Unfortunately, Gonzalez’s likely Pyrrhic legal victory found no vindication at the ballot box. Even in defeat, however, his challenge forced the City to confront the constitutional boundaries it had crossed. Regardless of who occupies the mayor’s office, this case serves as a reminder that Miami’s municipalities remain bounded by the constitutional framework that governs them. Coral Gables Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson suggested City of Miami v. Emilio Tomas Gonzalez will serve as strong precedent, saying “[the decision] applies the same to every city.” In this sense, although unsuccessful, Gonzalez’s legal challenge will far outlast the election results that followed it.
