Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Nation’s first campaign donation vouchers survive court challenge

Nation’s first campaign donation vouchers survive court challenge

The Washington Supreme Court allowed Seattle's first-in-the-nation campaign donation vouchers to continue.

This story was updated Thursday evening with new developments.

Taxpayer-funded political donation vouchers in Seattle can continue because they don't restrict any voter's free speech rights, the Supreme Court of Washington ruled Thursday.

The unanimous decision, upholding the only program of its kind in the nation, is a potential milestone for the cause of revamping the way money flows in politics.

While the city's vouchers are unique, the judicial blessing is nonetheless welcome news for the public financing systems created in seven other cities and counties across the country since Seattle established its program four years ago. It is also a sign that various ideas for government subsidizing of campaigns — which are under discussion in dozens of local jurisdictions, have advanced halfway through Congress this spring and also become a topic on the Democratic presidential campaign trail — will remain open to debate without being readily swept away as violating the Constitution.


Seattle's system "does not alter, abridge, restrict, censor, or burden speech. Nor does it force association between taxpayers and any message conveyed by the program. Thus, the program does not violate First Amendment rights," Justice Steven Gonzalez wrote for all nine justices on the state's top court.

Catie Kelley of the Campaign Legal Center, which helped defend the system in the case, hailed the decision as "a good sign and will give confidence to other jurisdictions pursuing public financing."

Attorneys for the property owners said they would likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 2015 referendum, the city voted to provide as many as four "democracy vouchers," worth $25 each, to every eligible voter in Seattle to spend in local elections. (Only candidates who agree to spending limits, and to taking only small-dollar donations, can accept the scripts.)

The aim was to boost civic engagement and partly redistribute the wealth — concentrated in a relatively small share of wealthy interests — that had financed municipal elections in the past. To fund the program at $3 million a year for a decade, Seattle voters also approved a tax increase costing the average homeowner $8 annually.

The first results, in 2017, were mixed. There were twice as many donations by voucher than by cash or check, and only 4 percent of residents used their vouchers, according to a University of Washington study. Most were claimed by the sorts of older and white voters whose participation rate in city elections was already high. And bureaucratic problems delayed the delivery of some voucher money to the politicians.

Still, 46,000 vouchers worth $1.1 million went to about a dozen candidates, several of whom said they would never have considered running without the taxpayer subsidy.

At the same time, a lawsuit was filed by the libertarian-leaning Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of two Seattle property owners alleging the system violated their free speech rights by making them — through their property taxes — support candidates they opposed.

The argument was rejected outright by Thursday's ruling, meaning the system will stay in place for this year's city council elections, and they system's acceptance is blossoming. By the start of July, with the elections four months away, 32 candidates have received almost 49,000 vouchers worth $1.2 million.

The political overhaul bill passed this spring by the U.S. House with only democratic votes, dubbed HR 1, would create a system where candidates could get $6 in federal funds for every $1 raised from individuals in checks of $200 or less. All seven Democratic senators running for president have endorsed that bill, but their Republican colleagues says it will never get a vote. In addition, Kristen Gillibrand of New York has worked to boost her low standing in the polls by touting a voucher proposal based on Seattle's system.

Correction: Earlier versions wrongly said Seattle had instituted the first public campaign financing of any kind in the country, and that its voucher system had been replicated in other cities.

Read More

An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign
Voters head to the polls in Minneapolis, one of five Minnesota cities that used ranked-choice voting on Tuesday.
Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Trump Targets Voting Rights and Suppresses Voting

This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy where we demonstrate the link between the administration’s sweeping executive actions and their roots in the authoritarian blueprint Project 2025, and show how these actions harm individuals and families throughout the country.

Two months into his second term, President Trump began attacking the most important pillar of our democracy: free and fair elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.
A pile of political buttons sitting on top of a table

Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.

Once again, politicians are trying to choose their voters to guarantee their own victories before the first ballot is cast.

In the latest round of redistricting wars, Texas Republicans are attempting a rare mid-decade redistricting to boost their advantage ahead of the 2026 midterms, and Democratic governors in California and New York are signaling they’re ready to “fight fire with fire” with their own partisan gerrymanders.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

Wilson Deschine sits at the "be my voice" voter registration stand at the Navajo Nation annual rodeo, in Window Rock.

Getty Images, David Howells

Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

On July 24, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a Circuit Court order in a far-reaching case that could affect the voting rights of all Americans. Native American tribes and individuals filed the case as part of their centuries-old fight for rights in their own land.

The underlying subject of the case confronts racial gerrymandering against America’s first inhabitants, where North Dakota’s 2021 redistricting reduced Native Americans’ chances of electing up to three state representatives to just one. The specific issue that the Supreme Court may consider, if it accepts hearing the case, is whether individuals and associations can seek justice under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). That is because the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, contradicting other courts, said that individuals do not have standing to bring Section 2 cases.

Keep ReadingShow less