Judge Blocks Fernandina Beach Recall, Says Paid Parking Dispute Isn’t Grounds for Removal

By Mike Lednovich/Editor

FERNANDINA BEACH — A Nassau County circuit judge has halted the recall effort against City Commissioners Genece Minshew and Tim Poynter, ruling that the allegations cited in recall petitions are legally insufficient and based largely on political disagreement rather than statutory grounds for removal.

In a 13-page order issued April 7, Judge Marianne Aho granted the commissioners’ request for a temporary injunction, effectively stopping the recall process from moving forward — at least for now.

Aho’s ruling prevents Nassau County Supervisor of Elections Janet Adkins from taking any further steps on the recall petitions, including validating signatures or placing the recall on a ballot. It also bars Recall FB 2026 organizers from continuing to collect or submit petitions.

“The Court… enjoins the subject recall process from continuing any further,” Aho wrote in the order.

The injunction remains in place pending further court action or a final resolution.

At the heart of the case was whether the allegations against Minshew and Poynter — centered largely on their votes supporting the city’s paid parking ordinance — met Florida’s narrow legal standards for recall.

Under state law, elected municipal officials can only be recalled for specific reasons such as malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, incompetence, or similar misconduct.

Aho emphasized that political disagreement is not one of those reasons.

“Thus, mere displeasure with the performance of an elected official or political disagreement is insufficient to justify the initiation of a recall procedure,” she wrote.

The recall petitions alleged two primary claims:

• Misfeasance — tied to the commissioners’ vote on the paid parking ordinance without a fiscal impact analysis

• Neglect of duty — for approving the ordinance despite a voter referendum in August.

Aho rejected both claims.

On the misfeasance claim, the court found that no law required commissioners to complete a fiscal impact analysis before rejecting a citizen-led ordinance, undermining the legal basis for the allegation.

“The act of voting… without first reviewing a comprehensive fiscal impact analysis cannot be considered misfeasance,” the judge's order states.

On neglect of duty, Aho ruled that commissioners had no legal obligation to delay action on paid parking due to a potential referendum.

“The act of voting to approve the paid parking ordinance… cannot be considered a neglect of duty,” she wrote.

Aho pointed directly to testimony from the recall committee’s side acknowledging the political nature of the dispute.

The order notes that, based on the hearing transcript, the controversy “overall… is a political issue.”

She further concluded that the complaints were aimed at decisions made by the City Commission as a whole — not specific unlawful acts by the two commissioners.

To grant the injunction, the Aho had to determine that the commissioners were likely to succeed on the merits and would suffer harm without court intervention.

Aho found both conditions were met.

She warned that allowing a recall based on legally insufficient claims could lead to abuse of the process:

“Approval of a ballot containing invalid grounds for recall would almost certainly lead to abuse,” the order states.

She also found that forcing the commissioners to undergo a recall election under those conditions would cause “irreparable harm.” 

Aho concluded that stopping the recall serves the broader public interest, noting that recall laws are intended to remove officials for misconduct — not policy disagreements.

“Officials should not have to incur personal expenses to ensure that a recall committee follows proper procedures,” she wrote.

The recall effort stems from the City Commission’s approval of a downtown paid parking program that was instituted Feb. 16 — a contentious issue in Fernandina Beach that has drawn sustained public opposition and sparked a citizen-led referendum effort.

As previously reported by the Fernandina Observer, recall organizers began gathering signatures earlier this year, arguing that the commissioners ignored public input and economic concerns.

Minshew and Poynter responded by filing suit to block the recall, arguing the petition language failed to meet legal standards.

The ruling does not permanently end the recall effort but places it on hold while the case proceeds. There was no indication if Recall FB 2026 would appeal the decision.

If upheld, the decision could effectively terminate the current recall petitions unless organizers rewrite them to meet statutory requirements and begin the process all over again.