Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Seattle’s Democracy Vouchers Show What a Healthier Democracy Can Look Like

Opinion

Seattle’s Democracy Vouchers Show What a Healthier Democracy Can Look Like

Democracy Voucher

Credit: Tom Latkowski

In a political era dominated by billionaire-funded Super PACs, voter suppression efforts, and widening gaps in political participation, it’s easy to feel like our democracy is slipping further out of reach. But in Seattle, we’ve spent the last decade quietly building something remarkable: a program that gives everyday people real power in our elections.

Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program is the first of its kind in the nation. And it works. Since its launch in 2017, the program has transformed how campaigns are funded, who runs for office, and who gets heard in our local elections. It’s become a powerful counterweight to the influence of big money in politics and proof that a different kind of democracy is possible.


On August 5th, Seattle voters will decide whether to renew the program by voting on Proposition 1. The outcome matters not just for our city, but for the national movement to build a democracy that’s more inclusive, more representative, and more resilient.

Here’s how the program works: Every Seattle resident receives four $25 vouchers they can donate to candidates running for local office. That means renters, low-income residents, young people – those who are typically left out of the campaign finance system – get a meaningful way to participate. And candidates no longer have to rely on maxed-out checks from wealthy donors to run viable campaigns.

The results have been striking. Since 2017, more than 100,000 people have used their vouchers to support local candidates – most of them first-time donors. The share of campaign dollars coming from big donors has plummeted, while small-dollar contributions have surged. And the candidate pool has diversified: more women, people of color, and first-time candidates are stepping up to run for office, often citing the Democracy Voucher Program as the reason they could.

This shift isn’t theoretical, it’s personal. I live in Hillman City, one of Seattle’s most racially and economically diverse neighborhoods, and I’ve spent much of my career working to strengthen democracy and community power. But I’m also a father raising two young boys. Like so many parents around the country, I’m deeply concerned about the direction of our democracy. From election denialism to the erosion of voting rights, the threats are real and growing. We need to be defending democracy at every level—from Washington, D.C. to our local city halls.

That’s why Prop 1 is so important. It would renew the property tax levy that funds the Democracy Voucher Program, ensuring it continues through 2035. For the average homeowner, the cost is about $13 per year. But the return on that investment? A local government that’s more accountable, more representative, and more engaged with the people it serves.

Other cities have already taken notice. In 2022, Oakland voters overwhelmingly approved their own “Democracy Dollars” program modeled after Seattle’s. Organizers in places like New Hampshire, Minnesota, and other California cities are watching closely. If Seattle’s program is cut or allowed to wither, it would send a chilling message: that even the most successful efforts to empower ordinary people in our political system aren’t safe.

But I believe we can choose a different path. We can show that when communities invest in democratic infrastructure, it pays off. We can push back against cynicism with concrete reforms that deepen participation and reduce the outsized influence of wealth. And we can make clear – to our children and our country – that local democracy still matters.

Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program isn’t just a local innovation. It’s a national model. And this August, we have a chance to protect it.

Estevan Munoz-Howard is a democracy strategist, community and donor organizer with expertise in democracy reform, fundraising, grantmaking, and developing racially equitable organizational practices.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less