Flagler County Seventh Circuit Judge Christopher A. France has dismissed the lawsuit challenging the appointment of a Palm Coast city council member, ruling that the city acted within its legal authority despite what the court called a “flawed” process.
The Dispute
The case centered on Palm Coast Councilmember Gambaro, who was appointed to fill a vacant District 4 city council seat in October 2024. Palm Coast Mayor Michael Norris filed the lawsuit, arguing that Gambaro’s appointment violated the city charter and that the position should have been filled through a special election instead.
The controversy began when Councilwoman Heighter resigned on August 23, 2024, creating a vacancy just months before the November 2024 general election. The city appointed Gambaro on October 1, 2024, to fill the remainder of the term, which was set to expire in November 2026.
The Legal Arguments
Mayor Norris, represented by attorney Anthony Sabatini, argued that the city had three options when the resignation occurred. As Sabatini explained to the court, “They could have immediately, via resolution or ordinance, scheduled a new qualifying period, allowed people to come in and apply, hold the election. It would have been very quickly done, but they would have had the legal authority to hold the November election at that very early period.”
The second option, according to Sabatini, was to use what he called a “delay clause” in the charter. He argued that “the second path that could have happened is, and it’s very clearly expressed here in the Charter Clause, they could have delayed the appointment until after the election.”
Instead, the city chose what Sabatini characterized as the third path, making “the appointment right before the next regularly scheduled election,” which he claimed “has created this legal and factual morass.”
The city was represented by outside council Rachael M. Crews, while Deputy County Attorney Sean Moylan represented the Supervisor of Elections, Kaiti Lenhart. The City’s defense argued that the timing made an election impossible, stating, “By the time that we get Councilwoman Heiter’s resignation, which was on August 23rd, 2024, we are past all the qualifying periods. We are past the primary.”
Legal Standing Issues
A significant portion of the case focused on whether Mayor Norris had the legal right to bring the lawsuit at all. This concept, known as “standing,” determines who can challenge actions in court.
The city argued that under Florida Statute 80.01, only the Attorney General or someone claiming they should hold the office can challenge another person’s right to hold that office through a legal action called “quo warranto.” Quo warranto is a legal proceeding used to determine whether someone has the right to hold a particular office or position.
The defense told the court, “The plaintiff does not have standing. This is codified in Section 80.01, Florida Statutes. That is the statute that applies to this situation when you’re challenging the title to an office. The legislature limited standing to the attorney general or a person claiming title to the challenged office.”
Mayor Norris’s attorney argued that the mayor had standing under different legal theories, including requests for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. A declaratory judgment is a court ruling that clarifies the legal rights and obligations of parties without ordering specific action. Injunctive relief is a court order requiring someone to do or stop doing something.
Sabatini argued that Norris had standing because “his votes, as a citizen, and honestly, if he were in America, he’d have equal standing. Because anybody who is living under the Charter, any of the 100,000 people living in the Palm Coast, whose lives are generally controlled by the votes of five individuals, should be able to challenge the qualifications to see the position that a person is occupying.”
Charter Interpretation
The Palm Coast city charter contains specific provisions for filling vacant council seats. The charter divides four-year terms into two halves, with different rules for vacancies occurring in the first two years versus the last two years of a term.
For vacancies in the first two years, the charter states that “the office shall be filled by appointment within 90 days.” However, it also includes a provision that “if that vacancy occurs within six months of the regularly scheduled election, then the council can delay the appointment.”
The defense argued this provision gave the city flexibility, explaining, “If you start at the November 5th election date and you backtrack six months, where are you? You’re off my board, you’re over here on May 3rd, and what’s the significance of that? Why does that make sense? I don’t think that was a mistake, I think that was intentional, because that gives you plenty of time to meet every single one of these election deadlines.”
The city’s position was that once the qualifying period had passed and the primary election had occurred, it was logistically impossible to hold an election for the vacant seat. As the defense noted, “It’s a logistical impossibility at this point. So what does the city do? At the next council meeting, which was September 17th, they opened it up to the public. Ten applicants at that hearing were interviewed in public.”
The Court’s Decision
The judge ruled in favor of the city on multiple grounds. First, the court found that Mayor Norris lacked standing to bring the lawsuit, stating, “I find that counts one and two therefore fail to state a cause of action as the only remedy is writ quo warranto. In this matter, I find the plaintiff not to be one entitled to hold the office.”
The judge explained that Norris was not someone claiming the right to hold the council seat himself, nor was he authorized by the Attorney General to bring the action. Therefore, under Florida law, he could not challenge Gambaro’s appointment through a quo warranto proceeding.
On the merits of the case, the judge acknowledged problems with the situation but ultimately sided with the city. The court stated, “I find that, although the result is flawed, the charter of Palm Coast was complied with. To fill the vacancy, the regular election as envisioned by the charter is November 2026 under these facts because of the precarious and unique timing of the vacancy.”
The judge noted that the timing was particularly problematic because the resignation came “after qualification of the primary election having passed with no qualified candidates again due to the timing of this that rendered the November 2024 election, one, impossible and two, it would constitute a special election not envisioned and not authorized by the charter.”
Special Elections and Remedies
One key issue in the case was whether the court could order a special election as a remedy. Special elections are elections held outside the regular election schedule, typically to fill vacant offices or address specific issues.
The city argued that the charter only authorizes special elections in two specific circumstances: for mayoral vacancies or in cases of recall elections. The defense told the court, “The only two times the city charter allows for a special election, you read the charter start and finish. There are two situations that the council deems important enough to hold a special election, and that’s if it is for mayor, they deem that office to be important enough for a special election, or if there is a recall.”
The city also argued that a special election would be extremely expensive, with the defense stating it “would cost the city probably more than 200 grand” and describing it as “super expensive and super time-consuming.”
Mayor Norris’s attorney countered that the court had equitable power to order appropriate remedies, arguing, “Just because the charter doesn’t contemplate a continuous amount of special elections or options of special elections does not limit this honorable court in its equitable options to correct the wrong that the city might have made in the past.”
Role of the Supervisor of Elections
The Supervisor of Elections, Kaiti Lenhart, was named as a defendant in the case but sought to be removed from the lawsuit. Her office explained that municipalities in Florida are not required to use the county supervisor of elections for their elections, unlike counties, which must use the supervisor.
As the supervisor’s representative explained, “Municipalities do not have to use the supervisor of elections for their elections under Florida law. Counties do, municipalities do not. So if an injunction were to issue, the proper defendant would be the city.”
The supervisor’s office indicated it would cooperate with any court-ordered election but preferred not to be seen as taking sides in the political dispute. The representative stated, “She does not want to be perceived as taking the side of the city against the mayor or the mayor against the city.”
Implications and Aftermath
The court’s ruling means that Michael Gambaro will continue to serve in the District 4 council seat until the next regular election in November 2026. The judge determined that despite the admittedly flawed process, the city’s actions were within the bounds of the charter.
The dispute also demonstrates the strict limitations on who can challenge appointments to public office under Florida law. The quo warranto statute’s requirement that only the Attorney General or someone claiming the right to hold the office can bring such challenges is designed to prevent what the defense attorney called situations where “every Tom, Dick, and Harry” could challenge appointments or elections.
While Mayor Norris was unsuccessful in his legal challenge, the case has brought attention to potential ambiguities in the Palm Coast city charter regarding the timing of appointments and elections. The judge’s acknowledgment that the result was “flawed” despite being legally compliant suggests that the city may want to consider clarifying these provisions in future charter amendments.
The post Palm Coast Councilmember Appointment Dispute: Court Rules on Appointment of District 4 City Council Seat first appeared on Flagler County Buzz.
