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

Illustration of someone holding a strainer, and the words "fakes," "facts," "news," etc. going through it.

Trump-era misinformation has pushed American politics to a breaking point. A Truth in Politics law may be needed to save democracy.

Getty Images, SvetaZi

The Need for a Truth in Politics Law: De-Frauding American Politics

“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” With those words in 1954, Army lawyer Joseph Welch took Senator Joe McCarthy to task and helped end McCarthy’s destructive un-American witch hunt. The time has come to say the same to Donald Trump and his MAGA allies and stop their vile perversion of our right to free speech.

American politics has always been rife with misleading statements and, at times, outright falsehoods. Mendacity just seems to be an ever-present aspect of politics. But with the ascendency of Trump, and especially this past year, things have taken an especially nasty turn, becoming so aggressive and incendiary as to pose a real threat to the health and well-being of our nation’s democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

Waiting for the Door to Open: Advocates and older workers are left in limbo as the administration’s decision to abandon a harsh disability rule exists only in private assurances, not public record.

AI-created animation

Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

We reported in the Fulcrum on November 30th that in early November, disability advocates walked out of the West Wing, believing they had secured a rare reversal from the Trump administration of an order that stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers.

The public record has remained conspicuously quiet on the matter. No press release, no Federal Register notice, no formal statement from the White House or the Social Security Administration has confirmed what senior officials told Jason Turkish and his colleagues behind closed doors in November: that the administration would not move forward with a regulation that could have stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers. According to a memo shared by an agency official and verified by multiple sources with knowledge of the discussions, an internal meeting in early November involved key SSA decision-makers outlining the administration's intent to halt the proposal. This memo, though not publicly released, is said to detail the political and social ramifications of proceeding with the regulation, highlighting its unpopularity among constituents who would be affected by the changes.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less