City clerk outlines proposed election-code updates including qualifying, fees and canvassing board changes

City staff reviewed a package of proposed amendments to Chapter 26 (the city's election code) designed to implement charter changes approved by voters and to clarify administrative procedures.

What staff proposed: the draft changes presented by the city clerk include several substantive items: - Adding an alternate member to the city canvassing board so a four-member panel can act when one primary member is unavailable (members must be registered voters in Miami-Dade County and are designated by the commission on the clerk's recommendation). - Combining qualifying rules into a single section and increasing the qualifying fee from $100 to $200 (the clerk said 1% of the salary for the office sought will be required as the state-required election assessment fee). - Requiring candidates to have been residents of the city for no less than 365 days (clerk spelled this in days to avoid ambiguity). - Moving the qualifying filing period earlier (from the 84th–81st day before the election to the 92nd–88th day before the election) while maintaining the same total qualifying hours. - Adding a two-day supplemental qualifying window if a candidate who previously qualified dies, withdraws, or is removed and the ballot (not yet finalized by the supervisor) would otherwise show only one candidate for a seat. - Specifying that newly elected officials will be sworn in and commence their terms on the 14th day after certification of results.

Discussion and points of clarification: commissioners discussed the supplemental qualifying period (some favored automatic election of a sole remaining candidate after withdrawal; others said the extra window preserves ballot competition). The clerk said the supplemental period applies only if ballots have not been finalized by the supervisor of elections; if ballots are finalized the remaining eligible candidate would be deemed elected.

Candidate vetting and background checks: commissioners asked whether the clerk could perform candidate background checks or verify residency and criminal history at the time of qualifying. Staff explained the clerk's role is ministerial: the clerk accepts qualifying paperwork when it appears complete, but the clerk has no general investigative authority to verify residency or conduct background checks. Commissioners discussed whether the commission could add explicit disqualifiers to the code (for example, felony convictions) and asked staff to research best practices and legal constraints for any such changes.

Next steps: staff will revise the draft ordinance language, research best practices on candidate eligibility and background questions, and return with a proposed ordinance for commission consideration. The supervisor of elections also will be re-contacted about early-voting site options identified by commissioners.

Ending: no votes were taken; the commission asked staff to bring back refined ordinance language and legal guidance on candidate-eligibility criteria and the tie/tiebreak procedures the commission prefers to adopt by ordinance.