2026 General Election Voter Guide

With the November 3, 2026 General Election approaching, we have compiled a comprehensive voter guide for Miami-Dade County, including Libertarian candidates, nonpartisan races, statewide constitutional amendments, countywide referenda, and municipal ballot questions.

Purpose and Methodology

Our goal is to provide Miami-Dade Libertarians and the public with a practical resource for evaluating the choices on their ballots and determining where our principles should guide endorsements and recommendations.

The review applies the principles of the national Libertarian Party and Libertarian Party of Florida platforms, emphasizing:

• Individual liberty: Privacy, free expression, personal responsibility, and freedom of choice.
• Fiscal responsibility: Lower taxation, restrained government spending, and opposition to unnecessary public debt.
• Private property and free markets: Protecting property rights, reducing regulatory barriers, and opposing government favoritism.
• Government accountability: Transparency, competitive procurement, independent oversight, and checks against corruption.
• Representative government: Protecting ballot access, meaningful electoral competition, and voters’ ability to hold public officials accountable.
• Local control: Favoring decisions close to the people while recognizing that local government can also infringe individual liberty.

Our methodology starts with the actual effect of each proposal, considers supporting and opposing arguments under these principles, and weighs the practical consequences. Not every question produces a simple libertarian answer. Some measures improve accountability while increasing government expenses; others reduce bureaucracy while weakening safeguards against favoritism.

We distinguish endorsements, which represent affirmative political support, from recommendations, which identify a preferable choice without implying complete agreement. Formal partisan endorsements are reserved for Libertarian candidates.

Consolidated November 2026 Voter Guide

Federal and State Candidates

1. U.S. House, District 25 — Peter Jassenoff (Libertarian)

Position: ENDORSE

Our Libertarian candidate for Congress in District 25. Supporting Libertarian candidates provides voters with an alternative to the two major parties. This race appears only in the applicable congressional district.

2. Governor and Lieutenant Governor — Scott Jewett and Nicole Skelly (Libertarian)

Position: ENDORSE

The Libertarian ticket offers Floridians an alternative focused on affordability, economic opportunity, lower taxes, and limited government.

Nonpartisan Races

3. Circuit Judge, Group 5 — Arthur LeMar “Marty” McNeil

Recommendation: McNeil — Reaffirm previous LPMD recommendation

Our August guide highlighted McNeil’s public-defense and criminal courtroom experience. His professional background is relevant to protecting individual rights and ensuring fairness in criminal proceedings.

4. Circuit Judge, Group 69 — Bonita Jones-Peabody

Recommendation: Jones-Peabody — Reaffirm previous LPMD recommendation

Our August guide recognized her decades of legal experience, including criminal defense. Judicial independence, due process, and respect for constitutional rights remain central considerations.

5. School Board, District 1 — Katrina Wilson

Recommendation: Wilson — Reaffirm previous LPMD recommendation

Wilson’s education background and support for school choice informed our earlier recommendation. Parents should have meaningful choices in their children’s education, and school systems should be accountable to families.

6. County Commission, District 5 — Rob Piper

Recommendation: PIPER

The recommendation emphasizes accountability and public trust. Questions surrounding Commissioner Vicki Lopez’s history and the school-bus camera enforcement program warrant scrutiny.

The program was suspended by Sheriff Rosie Cordero-Stutz in April 2025 after serious concerns about ticketing errors and due process, then relaunched in May 2026 with additional oversight. Lopez has denied improperly influencing the program, and her earlier honest-services conviction was subsequently vacated.

Piper’s candidate questionnaire is available for members to review.

Florida Constitutional Amendments

7. Amendment 1 — Budget Stabilization Fund

Recommendation: NO

Would increase the state’s reserve-fund cap from 10% to 25% of general revenue and direct additional funds into reserves.

Note: Although reserves can protect against financial emergencies, this constitutionally restricts fiscal flexibility and could prevent surplus revenues from being returned to taxpayers. Governor DeSantis has also publicly opposed the proposal.

8. Amendment 2 — Agricultural Tangible Personal Property Tax Exemption

Position: YES — ENDORSE

Would exempt qualifying agricultural tangible personal property from ad valorem taxation.

Note: This would benefit farmers and food producers, potentially including smaller agricultural enterprises involved in horticulture, beekeeping, aquaculture, and other qualifying activities. While preferential tax exemptions present unequal-treatment concerns, the proposal reduces taxation on productive property.

9. Amendment 3 — Property-Tax and Homestead Changes

Previously adopted position: YES — ENDORSED

Would substantially increase the homestead exemption for non-school property taxes and lower the annual assessment-increase cap for non-homestead property. Read the blog a

Note: Reducing property taxes helps protect homeowners and property owners against the growing cost of government.

Miami-Dade Countywide Questions

10. Charter Question 1 — Independent Salary Commission

Recommendation: NO

Would transfer authority over County Commissioner compensation to an independent appointed commission.

Note: Commissioner compensation should remain subject to direct voter control rather than being delegated to unelected appointees.

11. Charter Question 2 — Increase District Residency Requirement

Recommendation: YES

Would increase the district residency requirement for County Commission candidates from six months to one year.

Note: May strengthen candidates’ ties to their communities and discourage opportunistic district changes. The competing concern is restricting ballot access and voter choice.

12. Charter Question 3 — Vacancy Elections and Municipal Qualifying Standards

Recommendation: YES

Would permit certain vacancy elections to coincide with regularly scheduled elections and establish minimum municipal qualifying periods.

Note: Could save taxpayer money and improve election administration, although uniform county standards may limit municipal autonomy.

13. Charter Question 4 — Reestablished Elected Constitutional Offices

Recommendation: YES

Would update the County Charter to account for the elected Sheriff, Tax Collector, Property Appraiser, and Supervisor of Elections.

Note: Clarifies governmental responsibilities and the separation of functions among constitutional officers.

14. Charter Question 5 — Technical Charter Changes

Recommendation: YES

Would update terminology, administrative provisions, and permissible methods of public notice and participation.

Note: Primarily housekeeping changes, although alternative methods of public notice deserve scrutiny to ensure transparency is maintained.

15. Charter Question 6 — Advertising in County Parks

Position: NO — OPPOSE

Would expand advertising permitted in certain County parks, including advertising not directly connected to event or facility sponsorship.

Note: This recommendation requires additional discussion. The stated concern about expanded roadside advertising appears inconsistent with a YES vote, because passage would broaden advertising authority.

16. School Question 7 — Renewal of One-Mill Property-Tax Levy

Position: NO — OPPOSE

Would renew an existing one-mill property-tax levy for public-school operations for another four years.

Note: A NO recommendation reflects opposition to continued property taxation and a preference for operating within other available revenues. An alternative is to take no position given the tension between tax restraint and local voter control.

Municipal Ballot Questions

Our municipal review identified 48 questions across 12 Miami-Dade municipalities. Most involve government structure, spending, elections, private-property rights, and public accountability.

The following recommendations come from the municipal platform review and remain proposed positions rather than formally adopted LPMD positions.

Aventura

17. Elected Officials’ Annual Salary — YES

Would double Mayor and Commissioner salaries.

Note: Direct voter approval provides transparency and higher compensation may broaden access to public office. However, the increases create additional recurring taxpayer expenses.

18. Independent Auditor Rotation — YES

Would extend the required auditor rotation period from five to seven years.

Note: Provides flexibility and may reduce contracting costs, although less frequent rotation can weaken an independence safeguard.

Coral Gables

19. Public-Works Competitive Solicitation Threshold — NO

Would raise the formal competitive-solicitation threshold from $25,000 to $300,000.

Note: Administrative flexibility should not come at the expense of competitive bidding and safeguards against political favoritism.

20. One-Year Candidate Residency Requirement — YES

Would require one year of continuous residency for Mayor and Commission candidates.

Note: Favors a stronger local connection, although the restriction limits voter choice and candidate eligibility.

21. Four-Year Mayoral Term — NO

Would extend the Mayor’s term from two to four years starting in 2028.

Note: Reduces the frequency of voter accountability and raises concerns about incumbent entrenchment and potentially circumventing existing term limits.

22. Voter Approval for Park and Open-Space Property Disposition — YES

Would require 60% voter approval before certain public properties could be sold or subjected to long-term leases.

Note: Provides protection against politically negotiated public-land deals, although it may complicate legitimate privatization.

Doral

23. Lifetime Term Limits for Mayor and Councilmembers — NO

Would establish lifetime limits of four terms in each office.

Note: Term limits can reduce entrenched political power, but they also prohibit voters from reelecting candidates they prefer and can increase the influence of unelected administrators and special interests.

Key Biscayne

24. Voter Approval for Stormwater and Flood Projects Over $50 Million — NO

Would require voter approval for certain projects or programs exceeding $50 million within a three-year fiscal period.

Note: Places an important taxpayer check on major financial commitments, despite potential delays in infrastructure decisions.

City of Miami

25. $450 Million “Safe and Ready Miami” General Obligation Bonds — NO

Would authorize $450 million in debt for police and fire facilities.

Note: Even when the purpose involves public safety, government borrowing burdens future taxpayers and raises concerns over property taxes and long-term debt.

26. Permanent General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee — YES

Would establish a permanent advisory committee to monitor and report on bond-funded projects.

Note: Improves transparency over spending, schedules, and cost overruns, although a permanent committee adds another layer of government.

27. Virginia Key Marina Lease and Redevelopment — NO

Would authorize a long-term marina lease and privately financed redevelopment.

Note: Private investment is preferable to government financing, but granting a decades-long public-waterfront lease to one entity creates competition and cronyism concerns.

Miami Beach

28. 1691 Michigan Avenue Ground-Lease Amendment — YES

Would extend an existing private ground lease and authorize additional development above a parking garage.

Note: Supports private development and potential City revenue without direct public construction spending. However, the waiver of competitive bidding and very long lease extensions create favoritism concerns.

Miami Lakes

29. Council and Mayoral Vacancy Procedures — YES

Would revise vacancy appointments and allow the Vice Mayor to complete a vacant mayoral term.

Note: Can reduce special-election expenses, but shifts some selection authority from voters to current officeholders. Also potentially conflicts with Question 38 below.

30. January Term Commencement and Annual Vice-Mayor Election — YES

Would standardize when newly elected officials assume office and establish annual Vice-Mayor selection.

Note: Improves administrative predictability but delays the transition after November elections.

31. Resign-to-Run Vacancies Filled at Regular Town Elections — YES

Would ordinarily fill these vacancies at the next scheduled Town election.

Note: Reduces election expenses while preserving voter selection, although vacancies may remain open longer.

32. Two-Term Lifetime Limits — NO

Would impose lifetime limits on service as Mayor and Councilmember.

Note: Restricts voters’ ability to retain effective representatives and could empower permanent government staff over elected officials.

33. November General Election and December Runoff — YES

Would establish a December runoff when no candidate receives a majority.

Note: Provides a clearer schedule and allows a majority-supported winner, although holding another election creates additional costs.

34. Council Appointment of Town Clerk — YES

Would transfer appointment and removal authority over the Town Clerk from the Town Manager to the Council.

Note: Strengthens direct oversight by elected representatives but creates some risk of politicizing records administration.

35. Recall Petition Signature Requirements — YES

Would conform recall signature thresholds to applicable state law.

Note: Keeps recall procedures tied to voter population, although future state-law changes could affect accessibility.

36. Early Voting in Municipal Elections — YES

Would provide for at least two days of early voting.

Note: Expands opportunities for voter participation with relatively limited additional administrative requirements.

37. Technical Charter Amendments — YES

Would update terminology, legal references, and other Charter provisions.

Note: Generally useful cleanup, provided substantive changes to individual rights are not concealed in technical revisions.

38. Filling Council Vacancies — YES

Would distinguish appointments for shorter vacancies from special elections for vacancies of at least one year.

Note: Balances taxpayer costs with direct elections. Because Question 29 also revises vacancy procedures, the interaction of these competing amendments requires review.

39. Reduce Councilmembers from Six to Four — NO

Would eliminate two Council seats.

Note: Fewer elected representatives can concentrate authority and reduce residents’ access to accountable decision-makers.

40. Town Manager Removal and Acting Manager Procedures — YES

Would revise procedures for removal, replacement, and temporary service.

Note: Clear administrative succession rules can improve accountability, although the effects depend on implementation.

41. Mayor’s Duties and Annual State of the Town Address — YES

Would revise mayoral coordination duties and require annual public reporting.

Note: Supports accountability and communication while adding some formal government responsibilities.

42. Charter Revision Commission Procedures — YES

Would modify appointment and review timelines.

Note: Periodic charter review is consistent with eliminating outdated government rules and improving transparency.

43. Councilmember Inquiries into Town Administration — YES

Would allow individual Councilmembers to make good-faith inquiries of employees without prior Council approval.

Note: Strengthens independent oversight of government administration, although safeguards against political pressure on employees remain important.

Miami Springs

44. Northwest 36th Street District Height Restrictions — YES

Would remove an existing three-story/40-foot Charter height restriction for certain multifamily buildings.

Note: Advances property rights and reduces barriers to housing development. The selective geographic exemption is a limitation.

North Miami Beach

45. Commissioner Compensation and Benefits Rules — YES

Would require six Commission votes for compensation increases and revise cost-of-living and post-term health-plan provisions.

Note: The higher approval threshold restrains discretionary salary increases, although automatic compensation adjustments remain a fiscal concern.

46. Commission Meetings and Attendance Procedures — YES

Would revise meeting deadlines, special-meeting thresholds, and virtual attendance.

Note: Can improve public accountability and make it easier for Commissioners to address unfinished business.

47. Major Development Oversight and Recall Procedures — YES

Would strengthen oversight of development compliance and update recall procedures.

Note: Clarifies accountability, but requiring applicants to fund government-selected consultants may increase development costs.

48. Move Municipal Elections to May of Odd-Numbered Years — NO

Would change election timing and extend certain existing elected terms by six months.

Note: Extending incumbents’ terms without an election undermines voter accountability and may reduce turnout.

49. Candidate Legal Residence Defined as Domicile — YES

Would clarify the legal meaning of residency for candidate qualification.

Note: Greater legal clarity can reduce inconsistent enforcement, although residency qualifications remain a restriction on ballot access.

50. Four-Week Runoff Election Interval — YES

Would move runoff elections from two weeks after the general election to four weeks.

Note: Allows more time for election administration and voter information.

51. Expanded Municipal Public Health and Safety Powers — NO

Would broadly interpret municipal authority to include affirmative public-health, safety, and welfare obligations.

Note: Broad governmental mandates can justify additional regulation, spending, and interference with individual liberty.

52. City Manager Authority over Department Heads — NO

Would expand the City Manager’s flexibility to appoint and remove senior officials.

Note: Although administrative flexibility can be useful, concentrating authority in one unelected executive raises accountability concerns.

Opa-locka

53. Mayor and Commissioner Compensation Increase — NO

Would increase monthly compensation from $550 to $1,500 and allow future cost-of-living adjustments.

Note: Direct voter approval and broader access to public service are supporting considerations, but this recommendation involves a substantial increase in government expenses.

54. Health and Life Insurance for Mayor and Commissioners — NO

Would allow elected officials to participate in employee health and life insurance programs with City contributions.

Note: Establishes transparent compensation rules but adds taxpayer-funded benefits. This is another proposed YES recommendation that deserves fiscal review.

Palmetto Bay

55. Public Speaker Privacy and Written Comments — NO

Would allow public speakers to provide their municipality rather than their home address.

Note: Strongly supports individual privacy and reduces barriers to participation. The additional written-comment deadlines should not interfere with public expression.

56. Voter Approval for Public Property Transfers — YES

Would require majority approval for many transactions involving Village property.

Note: Protects against insider deals and political favoritism, although it could make privatization and routine property transactions more difficult.

57. Acquisition of USDA Property for Public Open Space — YES

Would direct the Village to pursue acquisition of specified federal property if it becomes available.

Note: Favors local control of potential open space, but raises legitimate questions about government land ownership, acquisition costs, and future maintenance expenses.

58. Single-Member Council Districts — YES

Would replace several at-large Council seats with geographically defined districts.

Note: May strengthen neighborhood representation and decentralize political influence, although each voter would directly elect fewer Councilmembers.

59. Council Term Limits and Four-Year Waiting Period — NO

Would establish restrictions on consecutive service and a mandatory waiting period, with grandfathering for certain incumbents.

Note: Restricts voter choice and treats candidates differently based on their incumbent status.

60. Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Golf-Cart Facilities — NO RECOMMENDATION

Would require certain mobility facilities in roadway projects and establish a dedicated transportation fund using existing revenues.

Note: Can expand transportation choices without creating a new tax, although mandatory design requirements may increase costs.

South Miami

61. City-Owned Property Leases and Franchise Rules — YES

Would permit certain City property leases under a four-fifths Commission approval process rather than existing franchise rules.

Note: Provides greater flexibility for private use of public property, but reduced hearing requirements and the removal of lease-term limits raise oversight concerns.

62. Public Notice Methods — NO

Would permit alternative legally authorized notice methods, including certain forms of online publication.

Note: Savings from digital notices must be weighed against the risk of reducing independent public notice and transparency.

63. Purchasing Procedures and Competitive Bidding — NO

Would replace the Charter’s general three-bid requirement with purchasing policies approved through the budget process.

Note: Weakening competitive procurement safeguards can increase opportunities for favoritism and waste of taxpayer money.

64. Timing of Special Elections to Fill Vacancies — YES

Would establish a generally applicable 60-to-120-day period for special vacancy elections.

Note: Allows more time for candidate qualification and election preparation, with opportunities to reduce costs by coordinating election schedules.