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

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less