by James Coulter
Several residents questioned whether requiring city commission candidates to verify their residency with a driver’s license or other identification would be effective.
At a recent meeting on Wed., Sept. 9, 2026, Lake Wales city commissioners voted unanimously to approve an ordinance establishing new residency verification requirements for city commission candidates.
The ordinance amends the city’s Code of Ordinances to create a formal document-verification process during candidate qualification. The process intends to ensure candidates meet the city’s existing requirement to have lived within the municipality for at least one year.
Under the new requirements, candidates must submit at least two approved documents to verify their residency. Acceptable documents would include a driver’s license, voter registration card, vehicle registration, property deed or lease, or homestead exemption filing.
The new requirements were proposed because the city’s Code of Ordinances outlines the candidate qualifying process but does not explicitly require candidates to provide documents proving they have met the one-year residency requirement.
“Recent discussions at the Commission level highlighted the need to establish clear, objective qualifying standards for the City Clerk’s office to verify candidate eligibility,” wrote Albert C. Galloway, Jr., City Attorney.
However, several residents raised concerns about the proposed requirements during public comment. One resident, Howard Davies, questioned whether the city clerk has the authority, ability, or resources to verify the documents independently. He said the process would still rely heavily on candidates’ sworn statements and oaths.
“My concern is that we have only created the appearance of greater accountability without creating a mechanism that actually delivers it,” he said. “While it may appear to strengthen the eligibility requirements for candidates seeking office, it ultimately changes very little in practice…In other words, we added paperwork, but we didn’t necessarily add meaningful verification.”
Another resident, Danny Kreuger, questioned whether commissioners who had already been elected and sworn in should keep their positions if it later became clear that they did not meet the eligibility requirements.
Kreuger urged the commission to convene an independent review to verify whether last cycle’s candidates met the new eligibility requirements, saying a confirmed finding should settle the issue.
“If it proves to be confirmed, then there is no doubt: it erases all doubt about eligibility,” he said. “But if it proves to be faulty, do we simply accept it because at the time, we really didn’t know what to do?”
Commissioner Carol Gillespie pushed back against applying the new requirements retroactively, arguing that any concerns about the last election were “water under the bridge.”
“What we are trying to do is make the requirements more clear for future elections,” she said. “So, the suggestion that there should be some retroactive effect of this amendment, I think it is not appropriate, and I would be opposed to that.”
Commissioner Terri Miller pushed back on the residency concerns, arguing that a “piece of paper” doesn’t determine where someone lives and that residency itself “isn’t definitive.”
She questioned whether staying at a different location overnight would truly change a person’s residence, even if their official address remained tied to their voter ID or utility bills.
Mayor Jack Hilligoss acknowledged the concerns raised during public comment and maintained that he and the commissioners worked to ensure the new requirements align with state statute.
“So, I think we have done what we can do,” he said. “To me, this is a step we have taken that gives us a definition of what we are looking for.”
Commissioner Keith Thompson noted that the discussion underscored the tension between the “letter” and the “spirit” of the law, while maintaining that the commission was doing its best to craft a workable definition.
“I think we have done all that we can do under the law,” he said. “Do I think it is perfect? By no means. Do I think our election system is perfect? By no means. There is a lot of vulnerabilities. But it is the best we got.”
Commissioners will vote on the second and final reading of the ordinance at their next meeting scheduled for Tues. Sept. 22 at 6 PM at the City Administration Building.
