Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Through local reform, women of color are re-imagining democracy

Opinion

Teresa Mosqueda

"The program was my ticket to run a people-powered campaign," Seattle City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda said of the Democracy Vouchers Program.

Stephen Brashear/Getty Images

Perez is co-director of Democracy Rising.

For almost 250 years, white men have led the design, implementation and reform of American democracy, and, frankly, it is not working well for many of us. Women represent a slight majority of the U.S. population, and, according to the Brookings Institution, people of color will constitute a majority of the population by 2045. Isn’t it time for people of color, and particularly women of color, to take the lead in re-imagining what a truly multiracial and multicultural democracy can look like?


In 2020, I co-founded Democracy Rising. We support impacted communities who are working to transform democracy at a local level. I’ve seen firsthand how transformative it is when women of color lead reform. We can do democracy differently, and, when we do, we can reshape who participates in the political process, who runs for office and ultimately who wins elections, which in turn can lead to policies that better serve our communities.

Why focus on the local level? Because smaller communities are better positioned to experiment around reforms and initiatives, and are able to course correct more nimbly than at the state or federal level. Effective democratic reform is happening at the local level; it is where the hands-on work of re-imagining democracy is being done, and it is largely getting done by women – particularly women of color.

Let’s consider Seattle. In 2015, voters approved a ballot initiative to adopt the Democracy Voucher Program. The program stipulates that all of the city’s registered voters are mailed four $25 dollar vouchers that they can use to donate to the local candidates of their choice. Furthermore, the program is also available to all non-registered eligible voters and legal residents, despite their ineligibility to vote. The goal of the program is to amplify the political influence of communities that were historically left out of the electoral process because they didn’t have money to contribute to campaigns.

The program was first implemented in 2017. That year, Teresa Mosqueda decided to run for City Council. As a 37-year-old woman of color who rented her home, she was one of many non-traditional candidates who ran that year. “I had been asked to run before, and I had always said no,” Mosqueda says. “But this was the first year that democracy vouchers were going to be available for candidates. What this meant to me was that I didn’t need to have deep pockets to run a campaign. The program was my ticket to run a people-powered campaign.”

Leveraging her background working for the Washington labor council, Mosqueda was able to not only fund her campaign using the program, but also to use it as an organizing tool.

“When I was knocking doors that year, so many people told me that no candidate had ever come to talk to them, and they would literally tell me to wait a moment while they went into their kitchen to get their democracy voucher to give to me,” Mosqueda says. “It was amazing to see them realize the power the vouchers gave them.”

The vouchers demonstrated to disenfranchised voters and non-voters that their actions mattered; they could use their vouchers to fund campaigns for candidates that shared their values and represented their communities.

Of the eight candidates running for the open at-large council seat in 2017, seven were women, people of color, young people, members of the LGBTQ community or a combination of those identities. Seattle had never seen a race as diverse; the reform had transformed the election. Candidate diversity has increased in each election cycle since.

“Since 2017, we’ve seen a three-fold increase in the number of people who contribute to local candidates,” Mosqueda says. “In 2015, the number was around 3,000 people. By the last election cycle, that number was up to almost 49,000 people. These contributions came from a diverse group of voters, and non-voters, including legal residents who are not eligible to vote, but are able to participate in the program and make their voices heard in this way.”

Mosqueda won her seat in 2017, and joined a Seattle City Council that had, for the first time, a supermajority of women. At the time, she was also the only renter on the council. Mosqueda and her colleagues have passed the largest progressive revenue legislation in Seattle’s history. As well, they passed the first city-level domestic worker’s bill of rights and a robust essential worker policy package that kept people employed and protected during the pandemic.

“It was women and women of color in the council who have been at the front lines of transforming how we invest in policing and public safety in our city,” Mosqueda says. “We moved about 17 percent of that budget to other areas, including a new department of community safety, and invested millions into mental health services and violence reduction strategies.”

Seattle is an example of how democratic reform that increases access to diverse participation and leadership results in better policy.

Another example of how democracy reforms can profoundly transform a community is the case of New York City. Prior to the implementation of ranked-choice voting in New York in 2021, 52 percent of the city’s population and 60 percent of voters were women, yet women had never held a majority on the City Council. Indeed, in 2021, before the implementation of RCV paired with other reforms including term limits and a robust public financing matching system, women held only 28 percent of the council seats. Now, women hold 61 percent of City Council seats, and younger women of color hold a majority of them.

Democratic reforms such as these remove systemic barriers that have made it difficult for women, and especially women of color, to run for office and win. They increase the number of people who have a say in the political process. Communities across the United States are adopting effective reforms like ranked-choice voting, participatory budgeting and voting rights for 16-year-olds. When these reforms are passed and implemented, women and people of color are empowered to take on leadership roles and we have seen their communities benefit.

The time has come for women and women of color to take the lead in re-imagining a truly inclusive democracy. Many women I’ve met are showing us how to do it in their own communities, and we would be wise to learn from them.

Democracy Rising and Represent Women are partnering to convene the inaugural Women of Color Democracy Transformation Summit in the spring of 2023.


Read More

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center March 6, 2018 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

After AIPAC failed to defeat El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary—after spending $32 million—it said that it remains committed to defeating El-Sayed and his "radical, anti-Israel" agenda in the general election. Which means it is poised to sink tens of millions of dollars in supporting Republican Mike Rogers. It also said that Haley Stevens, his opponent, had presented "an authentic Democratic agenda." Meaning that El-Sayed did not? And they think that Mike Rogers, a MAGA Trump supporter, does compared with El-Sayed?

How can AIPAC say that El-Sayed does not present an authentic Democratic agenda when his socialist stance is much more in line with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence than most centrist Democrats'? And making it sound like AIPAC cares about an authentic Democratic agenda is deceitful, when in the same breath they make clear that they will support Mike Rogers, a Trump lackey, in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research
silhouette of person using microscope

Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research

Scientists and the federal government have been close partners since World War II. A landmark report by President Truman’s chief science advisor laid out a vision for government research that shaped eight decades of federally funded science. That vision is now at risk. In principle, the Trump administration has supported scientific research with its own vision for a new “golden age of science.” But in practice, the administration has upended the relationship between the government, researchers, and their institutions. The changes have alarmed working scientists and their allies, who have protested in record numbers.

In July, I moderated a webinar on “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?” (read the transcript here). The webinar was co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with Dr. Aaron Carroll of AcademyHealth, Dr. Chris Marcum of the Federation of American Scientists, Dr. Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Maryam Zaringhalam of the Center for Open Science. I also interviewed Cole Donovan of the Stand Up for Science Foundation by email.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democratic Party Suicide
a piece of paper cut out of the shape of a donkey
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Democratic Party Suicide

A recent New York Times article, "Moderate Democrats Prepare for 'War' Against an Ascendant Left," describes a disturbing perspective among mainstream, moderate, centrist Democrats. It is disturbing for many reasons.

First, there is the practical impact. If indeed mainstream Democrats attack socialist Democrats in a sustained, organized manner, there is only one possible result: the defeat of the Party in 2026 and the renewed vigor of Trump and his MAGA allies. Especially when combined with the all-out effort that AIPAC will mostly take to support Republican candidates running against Democratic candidates who are socialists. (See my article, "The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC.")

Keep ReadingShow less
An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less