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

Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us
Provided

Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us

In the rush to “dismantle the administrative state,” some insist that freeing people from “burdensome bureaucracy” will unleash thriving. Will it? Let’s look together.

A century ago, bureaucracy was minimal. The 1920s followed a worldwide pandemic that killed an estimated 17.4–50 million people. While the virus spread, the Great War raged; we can still picture the dehumanizing use of mustard gas and trench warfare. When the war ended, the Roaring Twenties erupted as an antidote to grief. Despite Prohibition, life was a party—until the crash of 1929. The 1930s opened with a global depression, record joblessness, homelessness, and hunger. Despair spread faster than the pandemic had.

Keep ReadingShow less
Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan

Photo illustration by Alex Bandoni/ProPublica. Source images: Chicago History Museum and eobrazy

Getty Images

Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan

Some 4 million people could lose federal housing assistance under new plans from the Trump administration, according to experts who reviewed drafts of two unpublished rules obtained by ProPublica. The rules would pave the way for a host of restrictions long sought by conservatives, including time limits on living in public housing, work requirements for many people receiving federal housing assistance and the stripping of aid from entire families if one member of the household is in the country illegally.

The first Trump administration tried and failed to implement similar policies, and renewed efforts have been in the works since early in the president’s second term. Now, the documents obtained by ProPublica lay out how the administration intends to overhaul major housing programs that serve some of the nation’s poorest residents, with sweeping reforms that experts and advocates warn will weaken the social safety net amid historically high rents, home prices and homelessness.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s Ultimatums and the Erosion of Presidential Credibility

Donald Trump

YouTube

Trump’s Ultimatums and the Erosion of Presidential Credibility

On Friday, October 3rd, President Donald Trump issued a dramatic ultimatum on Truth Social, stating this is the “LAST CHANCE” for Hamas to accept a 20-point peace proposal backed by Israel and several Arab nations. The deadline, set for Sunday at 6:00 p.m. EDT, was framed as a final opportunity to avoid catastrophic consequences. Trump warned that if Hamas rejected the deal, “all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas,” and that its fighters would be “hunted down and killed.”

Ordinarily, when a president sets a deadline, the world takes him seriously. In history, Presidential deadlines signal resolve, seriousness, and the weight of executive authority. But with Trump, the pattern is different. His history of issuing ultimatums and then quietly backing off has dulled the edge of his threats and raised questions about their strategic value.

Keep ReadingShow less
From Fragility to Resilience: Fixing America’s Economic and Political Fault Lines

fractured foundation and US flag

AI generated

From Fragility to Resilience: Fixing America’s Economic and Political Fault Lines

This series began with a simple but urgent question: What’s gone wrong with America’s economic policies, and how can we begin to fix them? The story so far has revealed not only financial instability but also deeper structural weaknesses that leave families, small businesses, and entire communities far more vulnerable than they should be.

In the first two articles, “Running on Empty” and “Crash Course,” we examined how middle-class families, small businesses, and retirees are increasingly caught in a web of debt and financial uncertainty. We also examined how Wall Street’s speculative excesses, deregulation, and shadow banking have pushed the financial system to the brink. Finally, we warned that Donald Trump’s economic agenda doesn’t address these problems—it magnifies them. Together, these earlier articles painted a picture of a system skating on thin ice, where even small shocks could trigger widespread crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less