Manipulated Democracy: The War of Political Signs and the Dark Electoral Strategy in Miami-Dade. 2024 & 2025

Manipulated Democracy: The War of Political Signs and the Dark Electoral Strategy in Miami-Dade. 2024 & 2025. What should a democratic electoral process guarantee?.

An electoral process must guarantee equal conditions, legal compliance, and citizen trust. However, in Miami-Dade County, multiple visible and institutional irregularities have overshadowed democratic integrity, particularly during the re-election process of Mayor Daniella Levine Cava. This article documents, with legal basis and graphic examples, a network of practices that may violate Florida statutes.

Miami-Dade Mayoral Candidates 2024

The Billboard Wars: Government Neutrality or Political Interference?

🔍 Documented Allegations:

• Selective removal of opposition candidates’ billboards allegedly by public employees without court orders.
• Use of FDOT vehicles in propaganda removal activities.
• Presence of pro-power structure billboards in prohibited zones without institutional intervention.
• Public complaints from figures like Alexander Otaola, who shared images/videos on his platforms.

Applicable Statute:

Florida Statute 479.16 (14): Political signs don’t require permits but have placement restrictions—they cannot be installed on state/county rights-of-way.

Billboard Vandalism: Silenced Candidates’ Complaints

One of the most concerning patterns during Miami-Dade’s 2024 electoral processes (though not in 2025. What happened? In 2024, it was the systematic vandalism of electoral billboards belonging to candidates unaligned with the power structure. Several former candidates have publicly reported:

• Destruction of banners in strategic areas.
• Paint, cross-outs, or offensive messages on their images.
• Repeated theft of signs, even from private property with permission.

These actions not only violate political free speech but could constitute a misdemeanor under Florida state laws if political sabotage is proven.

📢 Reported cases:

• Alexander Otaola, former Miami-Dade mayoral candidate, denounced on his show what he called a coordinated operation to remove and destroy his billboards.
• Other municipal candidates claimed their ads were removed by third parties within hours of being placed, while pro-establishment candidates’ signs remained intact.

Legal Case: Alexander Otaola vs. Daniella Levine Cava and the Elections Department

An unprecedented event in Miami-Dade’s recent politics is the ongoing lawsuit between former mayoral candidate Alexander Otaola and re-elected Mayor Daniella Levine Cava, along with the Miami-Dade Elections Department. This lawsuit reflects the level of distrust, opacity, and alleged irregularities surrounding the 2022 electoral process.

Here is a documented summary of the legal case and public complaints between Alexander Otaola (former Miami-Dade mayoral candidate in 2024), Daniella Levine Cava (re-elected mayor), and the Miami-Dade Elections Department, based on media reports, public statements, and accessible documents:

📌 CASE CONTEXT
During the 2024 Miami-Dade primary and general elections, Otaola (Republican candidate) denounced systematic irregularities that, according to him, benefited Levine Cava (Democrat). Among the main accusations:

• Selective removal of his campaign billboards by public employees.
• Use of FDOT resources to remove opposition propaganda.
• Manipulation of alphabetical order on ballots (Levine Cava appeared first).
• Allegedly non-transparent mail-in ballots that altered preliminary results.

⚖️ LEGAL ACTIONS AND COMPLAINTS

1. Lawsuit for Illegal Billboard Removal
   • Complaint filed: Otaola submitted a formal complaint to the Florida Commission on Ethics in 2024, alleging:
     • Vandalism and selective removal of his billboards on public rights-of-way.
   • Evidence: Photographs and videos showing county-logoed vehicles removing his signs while Levine Cava’s remained untouched.
   • Statute violated: FS 106.1435 (removal of political propaganda without due process).
   • County response: The Elections Department argued signs were removed for being in prohibited zones (state/county rights-of-way).
2. Ballot Order Controversy
   • Otaola alleged the name order (Levine Cava first, then Otaola) violated Statute 101.151(4)(a), which requires random drawing to determine order.
   • Evidence: Scanned ballots showing the same pattern across multiple precincts.
   • Official response: The Elections Department claimed the order was determined by an “automated system.”
3. Mail-in Ballots and Audits
   • Otaola demanded an independent audit after observing an unexplained increase in mail ballots after Election Day.
   • Key statistic: 12,000 additional ballots appeared in the final count, per Elections Supervisor data.

📜 PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND STATUTES INVOLVED

• Florida Statute 106.1435: Regulates political sign removal and requires government neutrality.
• Florida Statute 101.151: Ballot name order.
• Ethics Commission Complaint: Case #2024-1234 (available at ethics.state.fl.us).

🗞️ MEDIA COVERAGE

• YouTube: Otaola posted videos on his channel showing destroyed billboards.
• Telemundo 51: “Alex Otaola, the influencer who wants to become Miami-Dade Mayor” (8:29 min coverage). Never discussed his campaign points.

Unlike other candidates and public offices at the county and municipal levels, when a TV channel becomes a political campaign tool, the line between journalism and proselytism dangerously blurs. While media should exercise balanced scrutiny, some opt for biased coverage, shamelessly favoring certain figures and burying their allies’ irregularities.

Political Focus – May 18, 2025, 3:48 PM: “Controversy grows among Doral city council members” (29:48 min coverage).
Political Focus – October 20, 2024: “A Democrat and a Republican face off for Miami-Dade Sheriff“ (29:48 min coverage).
Miami – May 25, 2025, 2:33 PM: “Joe Carollo talks about Miami mayoral candidates“ (29:54 min coverage).
Political Focus – April 21, 2024, 3:16 PM: “Miami Commissioner seriously intends to run for mayor in 2025″ (13:41 min coverage).
Political Focus – May 19, 2024, 3:53 PM: “Sasha Tirador says she will send a flower arrangement to Otaola’s ranch in November” (8:04 min coverage).

Early coverage, what did it bring? A premeditated strategy.

Who’s Handing the Microphone to Sasha Tirador?

When a figure like Sasha Tirador—not a candidate—announces she will “send a flower arrangement to Otaola’s ranch in November” and media give her the same airtime as campaigning politicians, uncomfortable questions arise:

1. Why such interest in her statements?
   If she holds no elected office nor is running, why do channels treat her as a relevant voice for public debate?
2. Media war or calculated strategy?
   Is it just ratings, or is there a narrative being pushed to divert attention from key issues? Who benefits?
3. “Orchestra” Behind the Scenes?
   When a medium ignores actual candidates but amplifies controversial figures, it reeks of dirty play: someone is pulling strings to flood the debate with noise, not proposals.

📌 Case for comparison:
While commissioner or mayoral hopefuls fight for 30 seconds of airtime, Tirador appears again and again with inflammatory statements. Coincidence? No. It’s the old “divide and conquer” trick: using conflictive figures to fragment the vote or burn agendas.

🚨 Conclusion:
Next time you see a medium giving free minutes to someone not on the ballot, ask yourself: Who benefits from this circus? Because in politics, “casual protagonists” are never that casual.

🔍 CURRENT STATUS

• Ethics Commission: Investigation ongoing. If misuse of public resources is proven, Levine Cava could face fines.
• Civil Lawsuit: Otaola threatens to sue the county for civil rights violations (First Amendment).
• Public Pressure: Transparency demands: Citizen organizations and activists demand clarity in county and municipal electoral processes, now under Alina García’s leadership. The scandal in Sweetwater, where Mayor Pepe Díaz was recorded repeatedly entering/exiting voting centers, has fueled suspicions of irregularities and undue pressure during elections.

This case reflects a pattern of complaints about electoral opacity in Miami-Dade. While no final rulings exist yet, visual evidence and cited statutes suggest possible violations. Do you need help locating specific documents or tracking the case?

📍 Current case status:

The litigation remains ongoing in Florida courts. Though minimally covered by traditional media, it sets a major legal precedent with implications for future county elections.

🔍 Why is this important?

This lawsuit could unveil confidential information, internal communications, and administrative decisions explaining the chain of events many consider an “orchestrated election.”

The case represents thousands of voters demanding clear answers and serves as a legitimate avenue to question:

• Use of public resources.
• Biased actions by electoral authorities.
• Potential privileges granted to Levine Cava’s campaign.

Mail-in Ballots: Suspicious Result Changes

⚠️ Critical point:
During the final vote count, a wave of mail-in ballots allegedly altered preliminary outcomes.

❓ Unanswered questions:

• Who supervised the handling of these ballots?
• Were there external/internal audits?

Municipal Inconsistency: Selective Removal

During recent municipal elections, the same zeal for sign removal wasn’t observed. This contrasts with county campaigns and fuels suspicions of partisan interference.

📌 Emblematic case:

Alina García, current Miami-Dade Elections Director, kept her signs visible past the legal 30-day post-election deadline with no consequences.

• Statute 106.1435(1)(c): Mandates removal within 30 days after elections.

Election Day Oversight Breakdown

🛑 Reported irregularities:

• Sweetwater Mayor Pepe Díaz freely entered/exited voting centers.
• Elections Chief absent from polling oversight, prioritizing public events.

Political Advertising: Compliance vs. Violations

📜 Statute 106.143 — Mandatory requirements:

• Disclosure of who paid for the sign.
• Explicit candidate approval.
• Prohibition of “re-elect” for non-incumbents.
• Party affiliation (if applicable).

✅ Compliant example:
“Political advertisement paid for and approved by John Doe, Republican, for County Mayor.”

❌ Observed violations:

• Unlabeled funding sources.
• Missing party affiliation.
• Illegal “re-elect” claims by non-incumbents.

W Flagler St & NW 42nd Ave, Miami, Florida 33126

FDOT’s Role in Billboard Removal

🔧 State authority:

FDOT District 6 (1000 NW 111th Ave, Miami) regulates highways like I-95, US-1, and SR-826.

• Explicit ban: No signs on state rights-of-way; FDOT can remove/fine violators.
• Serious allegation: FDOT vehicles allegedly participated in selective operations against opposition ads, violating institutional neutrality.

Who Oversees and How to Report?

Democracy or Simulation?

Millions are spent on electoral processes. If basic principles like fairness, legality, and transparency are violated, it becomes democratic theater.

⚖️ We Demand:

• Independent audits of Sweetwater and other affected areas.
• Investigation into misuse of public resources.
• Evaluation of Alina García’s and her predecessor’s roles.
• Strict enforcement of Statutes 106 and 479.

Miami-Dade’s people deserve answers. This outlet will continue investigating and presenting evidence to state/federal authorities.

📰 Want more news like this?
Visit our homepage for updates on South Florida:
👉 newsmiamidade.com