A judge says he plans to issue an injunction to halt two ballot questions over how they were set to appear on Boca Raton’s Jan. 13 special election ballot.
“For today, these don’t meet constitutional muster,” Circuit Court Judge Joseph Curley said Tuesday afternoon at a hearing in West Palm Beach.
The hearing was the result of a lawsuit filed by Ned Kimmelman, a retired Boca Raton attorney and city resident, on Oct. 31. Kimmelman alleged that the Save Boca group’s charter and ordinance amendments were misleading, contain false language and violate statutes.
“I’m more proud of this than anything I have ever done,” Kimmelman said after the hearing.
Also listed as a defendant was the city of Boca Raton, who in a statement Tuesday said that Curley “ruled from the bench that the specific language of the proposed measures did not meet constitutional standards and verbally directed that they not be placed on the Jan. 13 ballot.”
“We will review the court’s written order as soon as it is issued. The city respects both the will of our residents and the rule of law and will fully comply with the court’s order.”
Curley said the injunction will not permanently bind Save Boca, but for now, the group’s proposed amendments “will be off the ballot.”
Judge Joseph Curley talks to Boca Raton resident Ned Kimmelman at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2025. (Carline Jean/South Florida Sun Sentinel)
Save Boca’s charter and ordinance amendments proposed a requirement for the City Council to hold an election for city land lease or sale deals of more than half an acre.
These amendments were spurred by the city’s government campus redevelopment plan, which proposes residences, retail, office space, a hotel and new government facilities near the Brightline station.
In a statement, Save Boca founder Jon Pearlman, who appeared in court on Tuesday and is listed as one of the defendants, said he is waiting to see the terms of the court and what the ruling is.
In a statement, Boca Raton Mayor Scott Singer said the city awaits the court’s “written decision on what additional legal issues it identified.”
“The ballot language drafted by Save Boca raised a number of issues as to interpretation, implementation and costs,” he said.
Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Wendy Sartory Link also was listed as a defendant. In court records, Link argued that some of Kimmelman’s allegations were not addressed to her as the supervisor of elections, and she is not alleged to have committed any wrongdoing.
“However, to the extent these demands require compliance by Supervisor Link, she takes no position and stands ready to comply with any lawful order,” court records state.
Kimmelman’s argument
In his complaint, Kimmelman argued that the proposed amendment language contains “egregious material falsehoods that were used to induce voters to sign” and is “ambiguous, misleading and confusing to voters.”
Kimmelman argued that Save Boca’s use of a phrase in the petition — “the majority of registered voters have determined that this ordinance amending the City Charter is necessary” — is a misrepresentation.
“There is no possibility those recitals are true,” his lawsuit argues. “There is nothing in existence establishing that a majority of registered voters in the City are on record saying they ‘hereby find’ and ‘have determined’ what it says in the recitals.”
The lawsuit says that Kimmelman “knows of nothing written and there is no vote, no public record, no statistic, no tabulation, no polls, no focus groups, nothing governmental, absolutely nothing factual or legal which states or establishes in any manner that these recital claims are true and correct.”
Kimmelman also argued that placing the proposed charter amendment on the Jan. 13 ballot would violate a city statute that states no charter amendment should be voted on later than three months from the day it was certified by the city clerk.
Because the proposed charter amendment was certified by the Boca Raton clerk on Oct. 2, Kimmelman argues that the three-month cutoff for an election would be Jan. 2, not Jan. 13.
Kimmelman also alleged the charter amendment violates Florida’s constitution, specifically a section that states: “Special elections and referenda shall be held as provided by law.”
“Under the (state) constitution, the phrase ‘as provided by law’ means as passed ‘by an act of the Legislature.’ There is no city charter provision giving the electorate the right to impose a referendum requirement,” Kimmelman argued.
The Jan. 13 election
The City Council initially approved a decision to participate in the the county supervisor of election’s Jan. 13 special election for House District 87 because that was the first date the city could get.
“There was no other opportunity, so we adhered to what the charter required,” Singer had said. “This is the first available date, and we’re taking it.”
