Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Cardboard ballot box with a voter slip being placed into it by a hand, with a blue and red coloured background.

Cardboard ballot box with a voter slip being placed into it by a hand, with a blue and red coloured background.

Getty Images

The Leverage Ethic and the Spirit of Tripartisanship

I made the immodest proposal in my edited interdisciplinary volume Leveraging: A Political, Economic, and Societal Framework that the contemporary analogue to what Max Weber called the "Protestant Work Ethic" in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism was what I called "the Leverage Ethic."

Moreover, I suggested that the Leverage Ethic has more or less replaced what the late Harvard sociologist Daniel Bell called the "Consumer Ethic" in his classic book The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, which he argued more or less replaced the Protestant Work Ethic.

Keep ReadingShow less
“We Will Not Let This Destroy Our Sacred Sites”: Indigenous Leaders Fight Trump Administration’s Border Wall

Lorraine Marquez Eiler, a Hia-C’ed O’odham elder, listens as Tohono O'odham Chairman Verlon Jose speaks during a news conference at the Quitobaquito Springs site on Monday, Aug. 24, 2026.

Stephanie Casanova

“We Will Not Let This Destroy Our Sacred Sites”: Indigenous Leaders Fight Trump Administration’s Border Wall

Standing near the pond at Quitobaquito Springs, Lorraine Marquez Eiler, a Hia-Ced O’odham elder, shared how her ancestors held ceremonies at the sacred site — a desert oasis in a national park that the federal government is set to bulldoze for a new border wall.

She pulled out a photo of her great-great grandparents and her great-grandparents, who would walk about 50 miles through the Sonoran Desert to the springs. The O’odham call the water flow A’al Vaipia. She showed the image of her ancestors to a group that included Indigenous leaders and a U.S. congressional representative — all there on Monday to condemn the border wall construction.

Keep ReadingShow less
 Unrecognizable doctor prescribing pharmacy to patient.

After a 30-year decline, U.S. abortions are rising again. Texas data suggests bans may shift where abortions happen — not whether they do.

Natalia Gdovskaia/Getty Images

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Bridging the Gap

Introduction

We have spent decades arguing about abortion policy on ideological grounds. I think we now have an opportunity to step back, look at what actually happened, and ask a more fundamental question: What policies actually reduce the number of abortions?

I believe that is a question on which pro-life and pro-choice people should be able to agree. Whatever our differences about abortion itself, surely, we can agree that fewer abortions would be a good outcome.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less