Democracy Vouchers: Will Voters Renew the Experiment?

Seattle has been expanding local participation in elections, one $25 democracy voucher at a time since 2017. Is it time to carry on this experiment?

Voucers work this way: Early in election years, each Seattle resident receives four $25 democracy vouchers. The vouchers can be used separately or combined to support local  campaigns. In this year: those for mayor, council, and city attorney.

Now it’s time for a verdict on this novel experiment in public funding. Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell is proposing that Seattle renew the voucher program, which, without voter approval, will expire at year’s end. He’s asking the council to place the issue on the August ballot.

The program (submitted to voters in 2015 as I-122 the “Honest Elections” initiative) is unique in this country. It has been a success story in many ways. But, while much admired during its ten years of existence, the program has also drawn some criticism. Even supporters agree discussion is needed.

Democracy vouchers have met several of “Honest Elections” original goals. The city now has more widespread funding for campaigns. While only 1.3 percent of Seattle residents contributed to elections in 2015 (before vouchers) that number quickly grew to 7 percent and beyond. Instead of just funding by wealthy donors, campaign contributions come from contributors who closely mirror demographics of the voting population.

Another outcome is that, before vouchers, in-city contributions accounted for 65-80 percent of the total; but, since the voucher program was approved, local donations have grown to 93 percent. More local residents are supporting city campaigns. At the same time, candidates entering city races are increasing both in number and diversity.

But along with gains, there have been unintended adverse consequences. Among them is the clout of Independent Expenditures, the so-called IEs. Spending by political action committees (PACs) not linked to candidates’ campaigns, has grown both in number and in size. In pre-voucher years, total spending on municipal elections topped out at $785,000. By the 2019 election, that had ballooned to $4.2 million with the tape still running. The “Honest Elections” promise of “keeping big wealth out of politics” was thus not fully realized. It fell victim to the Citizens United decision that permits PACs to spend unlimited amounts.

Nevertheless, Seattle does have one barrier to PAC spending. In 2020, then Council President Lorena Gonzalez persuaded councilmembers to pass a law restricting spending by corporations with any amount of foreign investment. (Take that, Amazon.) However, nothing prevents corporate employees as individuals from donating to their favored candidates.

There remains another downside to the democracy vouchers program. That is found in the  limits imposed on candidates who sign up to participate in the program. In order to qualify for vouchers, candidates must promise to cap individual contributions at $350, plus $100 in vouchers. Those accepting vouchers must also limit total spending in both primary and general elections. Lid lifts however are granted when a candidate faces outsized PAC support. These lid lifts have become more common than not.

Spending caps mean that first-time candidates face an uphill battle becoming known. Name familiarity is hard to achieve given relatively low limits. Incumbents, on the other hand, already have the advantage of name familiarity. It’s no secret that the DV program gives incumbents a certain advantage.

It is possible that the city’s seven-member Seattle Ethics and Election Commission (SEEC), which administers the DV program, will adjust campaign spending limits. Earlier, the commission acted to quash abuses such as voucher harvesting. One example cited was the campaign of Grant Andrew Houston, a new-to-Seattle architect running for mayor. Houston hired consultants to set up street-side tables and collect signatures authorizing duplicate vouchers. Awkwardly, Houston amassed more vouchers than he won in votes. Since then, it’s been illegal for campaigns to pay contractors to harvest ballots.

Looked at nationally, Seattle’s democracy voucher program has fared well. After the 2021 election, Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy did a detailed analysis across three Seattle elections (2017, 19, and 21) and found increased public participation in municipal elections.

In their Georgetown U report, Sociologists George McCabe and Jennifer Heerwig said, “Seattle remains a trailblazer at improving local democracy and addressing political inequities in participation.” Their 2022 analysis reported how the city was making use of a small property tax (around $11 for a typical household) to increase public participation.

Since then, McCabe and Heerwig have published a book titled Democracy Vouchers and the Promise of Fairer Elections in Seattle.

The critical question now is: Will Seattle voters opt to keep the praise-worthy program?

Early in March, Mayor Harrell (who, like most incumbents, benefits from the voucher program) held a press conference to announce he’s asking the city council to submit a measure renewing the property tax funding the voucher program for another ten years.

Joining Harrell at the press conference were representatives of Sightline Institute and Washington Bus, as well as People Powered Elections Washington, a coalition of 24 community and political groups that favor extending the city program.

Harrell announced that, if voters approve the renewal, the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission will convene a work group early in 2026 to make recommendations on program improvements to reach residents in diverse communities and address the role of PACs in municipal elections. That promise has drawn a backlash from some who believe changes in the program should be identified earlier so voters will know what’s ahead.

In the meantime, Seattle Ethics and Elections executive director Wayne Barnett continues to field requests for information about Seattle’s unique program. He says most of these queries come from small California cities. But, he adds, queries have also come from Denver, Oakland, Los Angeles, and even New York City.

Although Barnett is supportive of the system’s considerable benefits, he says, “It’s not been as popular as I’d think.”  In Seattle, supposedly the home of fairer elections, it will be left to voters to decide in August if they want to keep on funding better democracy, one $25 Democracy Vvoucher at a time.