Can the Miami City Commission move municipal elections from odd to even years, or change officials' terms of office, without a vote of the electorate?
Plain-English summary
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier concluded that the Miami City Commission cannot, by ordinance alone, move municipal elections from odd-numbered to even-numbered years or change the terms of office for elected officials. Both are charter provisions of the City of Miami and, because Miami sits in Miami-Dade County, both require amendment through the referendum process the County set out in § 6.03 of its Home Rule Charter.
The AG's reasoning runs through a constitutional layer that is unique to Miami-Dade. The 1885 Florida Constitution, Article VIII, § 11(1)(g), required Dade County (now Miami-Dade) to "provide a method by which each municipal corporation in Dade County shall have the power to make, amend or repeal its own charter" and made that method "exclusive." Article VIII, § 6(e) of the 1968 Florida Constitution preserves the 1885 home-rule provisions for Miami-Dade by reference. The County's § 6.03 procedure, requiring a municipal resolution or 10% elector petition, drafting within 120 days, and a special election held 60 to 120 days after submission of the draft, is the implementing mechanism.
The AG identified Section 7 of the City of Miami's charter as the provision that sets municipal election dates "the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in odd-numbered years," and Section 4 as setting the four-year mayoral term. Because those provisions are in the charter, the AG concluded they may be changed only through the § 6.03 referendum process.
The AG distinguished Board of County Commissioners v. Wilson, 386 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 1980) (general law supersedes the County's Home Rule Charter on the substance of regulation), as not reaching the method of municipal charter amendment, which the 1885 Constitution makes exclusive. The AG also identified Third DCA authority concluding that "as the Home Rule Amendment makes the [procedure of section 6.03 of the Home Rule Charter] exclusive, no limiting provisions may be engrafted on it." The opinion treats § 166.021, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Election Code (Chapters 97-106) as general laws that cannot override the exclusive county-prescribed method for Miami-Dade municipalities.
What this means for you
Miami City Commission and other Miami-Dade municipal governing bodies
The opinion concludes that any change to a city charter provision in a Miami-Dade municipality, including election dates and lengths of term, must proceed through § 6.03 of the County's Home Rule Charter, beginning with either a Commission resolution or a 10% elector petition, followed by drafting and a special election within the statutory windows. Ordinance-only amendments to charter provisions are outside that method.
City attorneys for Miami-Dade municipalities
The opinion identifies two recurring lines that matter: the line between general state law (§ 166.021) and the Miami-Dade-specific exclusive method (which the AG reads as not displaceable by general law on the question of amendment procedure), and the line between charter provisions (referendum-only under § 6.03) and ordinance provisions (Commission action only). The AG notes that Miami integrated some former charter provisions into the ordinance code (referencing § 50, Subpart C), so the question of which document governs a given rule is itself part of the analysis.
Miami-Dade voters
The opinion identifies the County's § 6.03 referendum process as the exclusive route for amending a municipal charter in Miami-Dade. Under the AG's reading, an ordinance-only charter change is not effective as a charter amendment.
County and city election officials
The AG read § 6.03 as providing the path by which charter amendments reach the ballot. The opinion does not separately analyze election-administration procedures inside that process.
Municipalities outside Miami-Dade
The opinion analyzes Miami-Dade-specific constitutional and charter authority. It does not analyze the charter-amendment procedures available to municipalities in Florida's other 66 counties, which generally rely on § 166.021.
Common questions
Q: Why is Miami-Dade treated differently from other Florida counties?
A: The AG identifies Article VIII, § 11(1)(g) of the 1885 Florida Constitution, preserved by reference in Article VIII, § 6(e) of the 1968 Constitution, as requiring Dade County to "provide a method by which each municipal corporation in Dade County shall have the power to make, amend or repeal its own charter," and as making that method "exclusive."
Q: Doesn't general state law normally override a county charter?
A: The AG distinguishes substance from method. Board of County Commissioners v. Wilson, 386 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 1980), held that "the general law [that] supersedes the Home Rule Charter" in many contexts. The AG reads § 11(1)(g)'s "exclusive" clause as foreclosing displacement of the method by which a Miami-Dade municipality amends its charter.
Q: What does § 6.03 of the County Home Rule Charter require?
A: A municipal resolution or a petition by 10% of qualified electors, followed by drafting of the proposed charter change (within 120 days), and a special election held between 60 and 120 days after submission of the draft.
Q: Can the City Commission still pass ordinances without a referendum?
A: Yes for ordinance provisions. The AG concludes only that charter provisions, including election dates and terms of office in the Miami charter, require the § 6.03 referendum process.
Q: Could a general state law force Miami to move its elections to even years by ordinance?
A: The AG read § 166.021 and Chapters 97-106 as general laws that, "to the extent that such general laws contravene only the method that Miami-Dade County set forth for municipalities to amend their charters … must not apply." A general law that purported to override the § 6.03 method would conflict with § 11(1)(g)'s exclusive clause under the AG's reading.
Q: What if the change touches only a runoff election or some non-charter procedural matter?
A: The AG focuses on charter provisions. The opinion does not analyze ordinance-level election rules separately, but the AG's framework identifies the location of the rule (charter vs. ordinance) as the operative question.
Background and statutory framework
The opinion sits at the intersection of three legal sources:
-
The Florida Constitution. Article VIII, § 11(1)(g) of the 1885 Constitution gave Dade County a unique home-rule structure, including the exclusive power to set the method by which its municipalities amend their charters. Article VIII, § 6(e) of the 1968 Constitution preserves the 1885 provisions for Miami-Dade by reference.
-
The Miami-Dade Home Rule Charter. Section 6.03 implements the constitutional command. It requires a municipal resolution or a 10% elector petition to start the process, drafting within 120 days, and a special election held between 60 and 120 days after the draft is submitted.
-
The City of Miami Charter. Section 4 fixes the four-year mayoral term and the Commission's ordinance authority "except as provided in the charter." Section 7 fixes the date of municipal elections as "the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in odd-numbered years."
The AG's analysis reads the constitutional "exclusive" clause as displacing general state laws (§ 166.021, Chapters 97-106) on the method of amendment for Miami-Dade municipalities. Third DCA authority that the single-subject rule of § 166.041(2) cannot be "engrafted" onto the § 6.03 procedure supports the same reading. The opinion concludes that the substance of the city's election-date and term-of-office rules sits in the charter, so changing them requires the referendum.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- § 16.01, Fla. Stat. (Attorney General duties)
- § 166.021, Fla. Stat. (Powers of municipalities)
- § 166.041, Fla. Stat. (Procedures for adoption of ordinances)
- Florida Constitution of 1885, Article VIII, § 11 (preserved by reference in 1968 Constitution Article VIII, § 6(e))
Cases:
- Board of County Commissioners v. Wilson, 386 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 1980), general law supersedes Home Rule Charter on substance
- Metro Dade County v. City of Miami, limits on county home rule conflict with state law
Charters:
- Miami-Dade County Home Rule Amendment and Charter, § 6.03 (procedure for amending municipal charters)
- City of Miami Charter, §§ 4, 7 (election dates and terms of office)
Source
- Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/27979
Original opinion text
Commissioner Miguel Angel Gabela
City of Miami
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Dear Commissioner Gabela:
As a Commissioner for the City of Miami who is concerned about whether an upcoming vote of the Commission would be inconsistent with the Florida Constitution, you submitted a letter to my office on June 5, 2025. In your letter and accompanying memorandum, you ask whether the Commission may pass a motion allowing municipal elections to move from odd-numbered to even-numbered years, in the absence of voter approval. You further ask whether the Commission may otherwise change the terms of office for elected officials, also without voter approval. Section 16.01(3), Florida Statutes (2024) provides me with discretion to consider and respond to inquiries from a local government officer, such as yourself, on any question of law relating to the official duties of the requesting officer.
Background
Given the City of Miami's status as a municipality within Miami-Dade County, longstanding, specific provisions of the Florida Constitution apply to your inquiries. Consistent with the Constitution's authority, both Miami-Dade County and the City of Miami enacted charters that govern certain matters and contain procedures.
Florida Constitution
Article VIII, section 6 of the Florida Constitution, which was last revised in 2018, refers to the County's Home Rule Charter. The provisions state, in part, as follows:
Section 6. Schedule to Article VIII. --
This article shall replace all of Article VIII of the Constitution of 1885, as amended, except those sections expressly retained and made a part of this article by reference.
(e) CONSOLIDATION AND HOME RULE. Article VIII, Sections 9, 10, 11 and 24, of the Constitution of 1885, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect as to each county affected, as if this article had not been adopted, until that county shall expressly adopt a charter or home rule plan pursuant to this article. All provisions of the Metropolitan Dade County Home Rule Charter, heretofore or hereafter adopted by the electors of Dade County pursuant to Article VIII, Section 11, of the Constitution of 1885, as amended, shall be valid, and any amendments to such charter shall be valid; provided that the said provisions of such charter and the said amendments thereto are authorized under said Article VIII, Section 11, of the Constitution of 1885, as amended.
This current section is unique in its reference to the Constitution of 1885 and in its application to Metropolitan Dade County, in particular. Article VIII, Section 11 of the 1885 Constitution provides, in part, as follows:
SECTION 11. Dade County, home rule charter.—(1) The electors of Dade County, Florida, are granted power to adopt, revise, and amend from time to time a home rule charter of government for Dade County, Florida, under which the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County shall be the governing body. This charter:
(g) Shall provide a method by which each municipal corporation in Dade County shall have the power to make, amend or repeal its own charter. Upon adoption of this home rule charter by the electors this method shall be exclusive and the Legislature shall have no power to amend or repeal the charter of any municipal corporation in Dade County.
County Home Rule Charter and City of Miami Charter
Consistent with the Constitution's provision of authority to the County regarding establishing and overseeing municipalities within the County, the current Miami-Dade County Home Rule Amendment and Charter directs municipalities within the County to develop a method for considering charter amendments. The County's charter further provides that, except for changes to municipal boundaries, any municipality in the County may adopt, amend or revoke a charter for its own government, provided the municipality adheres to the process set forth in section 6.03.
The process by which a municipality may amend its charter requires, within 120 days of the municipality's adoption of a resolution or receipt of a petition of ten percent of qualified electors of the municipality, drafting by a method determined by municipal ordinance a proposed charter amendment, revocation or abolition and submitting such proposal at a special election between 60 days and 120 days of submission of the draft.
As for the City of Miami, its municipal charter sets forth specific election dates and lengths of term for the mayor and commissioners. Section 4 of the charter states the city commission maintains the authority to pass ordinances and adopt regulations and exercise all powers conferred upon the city except as provided in the charter. Section 4 goes on to state that the mayor shall be elected at large by the electors of the City and shall hold office for a term of four years.
Section 7 of the City's charter sets forth precise requirements for election of city commissioners and the mayor: it states a general municipal election for the mayor and city commissioners must be held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in odd-numbered years, unless the election is a runoff election. It further states, "[a]ll elections held in said city shall be conducted and held according to the provisions of the general election laws of the State of Florida, except as otherwise provided for in the Charter."
Method of Amending a Charter Provision
Section 11(1)(g) of the Florida Constitution of 1885, as described above, required Dade County to "provide a method by which each municipal corporation in Dade County shall have the power to make, amend or repeal its own charter." Section 11(1)(g) further provides, "this method shall be exclusive" upon its adoption. Dade County prescribed such a procedure by enacting section 6.03 of its Home Rule Charter, which unequivocally requires a proposed charter amendment, revocation, or abolition to be submitted to the electors of the municipalities.
The Third District Court of Appeal has addressed the defensibility and enforcement of certain procedural sections in the County's Home Rule Charter. The court has stated the single-subject requirement of section 166.041(2), Florida Statutes (1999), could not apply to amendments to charters of municipalities located in the county, stating, "as the Home Rule Amendment makes the [procedure of section 6.03 of the Home Rule Charter] exclusive, no limiting provisions may be engrafted on it."
The existing precedent of the Third District is consistent with other court opinions that acknowledge the unique nature of Miami-Dade County, due to the provisions in the Constitution of 1885. In Metro Dade County v. City of Miami, the Florida Supreme Court indicated the county's Home Rule Charter allowed the county to conflict with state law, but only to the extent that such conflict is in the areas "specifically authorized" in the charter.
General Law
General laws such as section 166.021, Florida Statutes (2024), and those in the Florida Election Code, codified at chapters 97-106, address amendments of election dates and terms. To the extent that such general laws contravene only the method that Miami-Dade County set forth for municipalities to amend their charters, such general laws must not apply. Permitting a general law to prevail over the narrow, express method that the County considered and expressly set forth for municipalities' amendments to charters would not only render the provisions of Section 6.03 of the county's charter meaningless, but it would also disregard the "exclusive" clause in section 11(1)(g) of the 1885 Florida Constitution.
It is well-settled in Florida that in almost every case, general laws will prevail over local governments' provisions. In Board of County Commissioners v. Wilson, 386 So. 2d 556, 561 (Fla. 1980), the Florida Supreme Court held that although Dade County was authorized to create a home rule charter, general laws enacted after the county's adoption of the charter would apply; as such, "it is the general law [that] supersedes the Home Rule Charter." Since then, courts have held that when a conflict exists between the county's charter and a general law of the state, general law prevails. In contrast, courts have also recognized that the Legislature lacks power to regulate or control municipalities in Dade County by special or local acts, as they are distinct from general law.
This instant opinion does not disrupt such precedent. Here, the question involves the method of a municipality amending its charter, rather than the substance of the amendment itself. To the extent that a party might regard section 166.021, Florida Statutes, as providing a means by which a municipality may amend its charter by way of simple adoption of an ordinance, this section conflicts with the Dade County Home Rule Charter. The charter specifies that the electors of municipalities must decide directly, by way of referenda, whether to amend their charters; in contrast, a decision in which the municipality's governing body alone purports to amend unilaterally the municipality's charter simply contradicts the county's charter. The fact that the result of the charter amendment might achieve a specific objective stated in a general law is of no consequence.
Conclusion
If the City of Miami is to amend its charter, either to move the date of municipal elections or to change the terms of office for elected officials, then the change may only proceed by a vote of the electors, as described in Article VI, section 6.03 of the County's Home Rule Charter. The "exclusive" language of the 1885 Constitution in section 11(1)(g) prohibits charter amendments from proceeding by any method other than the one prescribed in the Home Rule Charter. The electorate of the City of Miami, by way of the County's provisions in the County Charter, has a direct role in amending its charter; ignoring this procedure would render meaningless the applicable provisions of the 1885 Florida Constitution.
Sincerely,
James Uthmeier
Attorney General