Seattle's Democracy Voucher Program Faces Critical Renewal Vote in August Primary

Democracy Voucher Program | City of Seattle

Information for Seattle Residents - Democracy Voucher Program | City of Seattle

External Reports - Democracy Voucher Program | City of Seattle

Professor Heerwig’s Book: Democracy Vouchers and the Promise of Fairer Elections in Seattle

Professor Heerwig’s Research Page: Seattle Democracy Vouchers

“Evaluating Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program” by Lily Goodspeed | Fels Institute of Government, Summer ‘20

“Give Us Some Credit: Creating More Viable Public Financing Programs Through Tax Credits and Democracy Vouchers” by Garvey McKee | Penn State Law Review

“Do Democracy Vouchers help democracy?” by Sarah Papich | Contemporary Economic Policy

“If We Build It, Only Some Will Come: An Experimental Study of Mobilization for Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program” by Geoffery Henderson and Hahrie Han | Journal of Experimental Political Science

“Racial Justice Advocates Provide Essential Leadership in Pioneering Seattle Democracy Vouchers Victory” | Report from Dēmos and Washington CAN

[00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I’m your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work, with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what’s happening, why it’s happening, and what you can do about it.

This August, Seattle voters will decide more than just who represents them. They'll also vote on whether to continue funding one of the most innovative democratic experiments in the country. Proposition 1 asks voters to renew Seattle's groundbreaking Democracy Voucher program, the first-in-the-nation system that gives every eligible resident four $25 vouchers to support local candidates of their choice.

Since launching in 2017, Democracy Vouchers have fundamentally transformed Seattle's political landscape. The program has nearly doubled the number of people contributing to local campaigns, brought tens of thousands of new voices into the political process, and made the donor base far more representative of Seattle's diversity by race, income, and age. It's also encouraged more diverse candidates to run for office and reduce the influence of big money from outside the city.

But the program's current funding expires this year, making Proposition 1 a critical test of whether Seattle will continue leading the nation on campaign finance reform or let this democratic innovation disappear.

Today, we're joined by two people who know this program inside and out. Estevan Muñoz-Howard was one of the original leaders of the 2015 campaign that created the Democracy Voucher program and continues his work as a democracy activist with People Powered Elections Seattle. And Professor Jennifer Heerwig from Stony Brook University is the leading scholar studying the program's impacts. She's tracked its effects through multiple election cycles and recently published a book on her findings called Democracy Vouchers and the Promise of Fairer Elections in Seattle. We'll dive into what the research shows about how Democracy Vouchers are working, what's really at stake with Proposition 1, and why this vote matters not just for Seattle, but for the future of democracy reform across the country. Welcome, Professor Jennifer Heerwig and Estevan Muñoz-Howard!

[00:02:25] Estevan Muñoz-Howard: Happy to be here.

[00:02:27] Professor Jennifer Heerwig: Thank you for having us.

[00:02:28] Crystal Fincher: Excellent. So just starting off, what are Democracy Vouchers, and how did the idea come about? Estevan, starting with you.

[00:02:37] Estevan Muñoz-Howard: Sure. So, the Democracy Voucher program is an innovative public financing system that was started here in Seattle, Washington. And it essentially is an effort to mitigate the influence of money in politics and amplify the voices of regular people in our political process. The idea is that it provides four $25 vouchers to adult residents throughout the city that they can then use to contribute to qualified candidates of their choice. And in doing so - it amplifies the voices of small donors, It makes it more feasible for regular people to participate in the process of selecting our elected leaders, and it incentivizes candidates to reach more individual voters, rather than just focusing on catering to the interests of wealthy donors that historically have dominated the political process. Prior to 2015, the city's municipal campaigns were primarily funded by about 8,000 of the city's wealthiest donors - so, about 1.5% of the city's population was the entire community contributing to municipal campaigns. And we wanted to interrupt that and make it so that more people could participate. And so the Democracy Voucher program allows more people to have a voice and to participate meaningfully in the political process.

[00:03:56] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Professor Heerwig - is this a first in the nation, only in the nation situation? And what kinds of other programs are there at the municipal level that are seeking to address campaign finance reform and hoping to make things more fair and equitable?

[00:04:14] Professor Jennifer Heerwig: Thanks - that's a great question. So the Seattle program is both the first and the only at the moment. Seattle was the absolute first municipality, state, locality to pass and then implement this program. So Seattle built the program, envisioned the program from the ground up - so everything from how candidates are qualified to how many vouchers voters would receive, to like what color the envelopes would be - all of that came from Seattle. So Seattle was the first. It is still the only program in the U.S. There are a number of other cities that are looking at the voucher program as a very promising model to adopt in their localities. However, as of 2025, we don't have any other functioning programs in the States. There is potentially one coming online in Oakland, California. Voters there also passed an initiative to start a voucher program, but unfortunately, that program has run into some financing problems. So that program may come online in the next year or two, but we're still kind of waiting to see if all of the pieces come together in that particular jurisdiction.

In terms of other programs that municipalities in particular use, really, the most popular model in the U.S. for local elections is the matching funds model. And this is a model that has been around for a long time - it's a kind of tried and true model. It's the model that we have, or the system that we have here in New York City, where I live. And that system, which is very popular and increasingly popular, works by supplementing private donations that are given by small-dollar donors. So if you give a contribution up to a specific threshold small-dollar donation, that donation is then magnified, supplemented with public money. So in New York City currently, in our city elections, we have an 8-to-1 match for our city offices. The mayoral race is being run under a matching funds program this current election cycle - you may have heard about our program in the news. And that's actually the most popular program if you look across the U.S. at the moment, especially at the local level - it's matching funds. The other model that has been used is the grants-based program. That program would give candidates a grant, whether it's a big chunk of change or just a partial grant to offset some of the costs of running for office. That model is used in a number of states and a couple of cities, but as of 2025, it's not catching on now as it had been, let's say, 10 or 20 years ago.

[00:06:56] Crystal Fincher: Now, Estevan, can you just in plain terms explain the nuts and bolts of how Democracy Vouchers work for residents of Seattle? What do they get? What can they do with them?

[00:07:08] Estevan Muñoz-Howard: Sure. So, with the Democracy Voucher program - essentially, the thrust of the program is that it provides adult residents with an opportunity to receive four $25 vouchers that they can use to contribute to qualified candidates of their choice. Candidates have to be running for a municipal race - so it would cover races for Mayor, City Attorney and City Council. And essentially, if you are a registered voter in the city, you automatically would be on the list to receive vouchers. If you're not a registered voter, then the city doesn't actually have a comprehensive list of all adult residents in the city who would qualify to receive a voucher. And so, if you are not a registered voter, you can fill out a short application form to receive them and be added to the list. Once you're on the list, then you receive four $25 vouchers in the mail - and they function similar to checks or coupons. So you have four separate pieces of paper that you can fill out the name of the candidate that you want to support, and you can mail it back in to the City. You can also hand it directly to the candidate's campaign as they're going door-to-door or at a public event. You can also register to receive and use your vouchers online. So if you'd prefer not to have the paper - that can get lost, or you accidentally recycle it and then it's hard to track down - you can register to access your vouchers digitally and allocate them online through the portal with the City as well.

And in doing so, again, it makes it so that you can ensure that your favorite candidate has the ability to fund their campaign, that they can run a competitive race. And I will say just one note, the reason why we landed on the Democracy Voucher program versus a small donor matching system or a grant-based program - there are a few reasons. For one thing, we felt like the Democracy Voucher program offered a more equitable path for people to participate more fully in our democracy. With a matching system, you have to have $10 or $20 that you want to contribute on the front end - and not everybody has that. Not everybody's in a place where they feel confident that their $10 or $20 is going to make a difference, even if it is matched 7-to-1 or 8-to-1 with public funds. And so I think that's one factor that went into this - that at this point in Seattle, there is a floor for political voice. Everybody is eligible to access these vouchers and you can have $100 worth of say in who gets elected. With a grant-based program, there's also this disconnect, where once you qualify and receive the grant, then you don't have to go door-to-door. You don't have to worry about reaching more people - you can just pay for your campaign. Which may seem easier from a candidate perspective, but in terms of actually fulfilling the promise of democracy and engaging more individuals, that seems to fall off because there just isn't as much of an incentive. Whereas in this case, everybody in the city is a potential $100 donor, so there's more of an incentive for people to go out, knock on more doors, and spend less time calling the wealthiest people they know to get them to fund their campaign.

[00:10:12] Crystal Fincher: I think that's a difference that certainly - as someone who has worked on the campaign side, seen a lot how that's operated - has made a big difference there. We're seeing campaigns engage with so many more members of the public than they used to overall. Certainly, there were some candidates who made it a priority to doorbell and talk to a lot of candidates, but there were some who didn't and got away with that. And if they came in with a big budget and had large donors, they were able to essentially avoid talking to a lot of people - just do a big mail campaign at the end and call it a day without necessarily interfacing with a lot more people. So, at least anecdotally from my end, it looks like that has made a difference.

Professor Heerwig, I want to get a better idea of the kind of difference that this has made overall. You've studied this program. You've studied other programs that have sought to make change, like you talked about before. What are the effects of Democracy Vouchers in Seattle? Where have we seen it make a difference?

[00:11:19] Professor Jennifer Heerwig: So my research on the Democracy Voucher program has looked at the program's effects on two sides - one on the voter side, the citizen side, and one on the candidate side. On the voter side, one of the most important outcomes for us has been - does this program increase participation in local elections and local election financing? And if we look at the data, we see, as Estevan already mentioned - before the voucher program, Seattle's contributor rate, so the percentage of the population making a contribution, was around one-ish percent, a little bit over one percent. So fairly concentrated within Seattle, again, wealthy neighborhoods - you can probably guess where they are. After the voucher program - we saw in just one cycle - that participation rate climbed to about 5%. That was in 2017. In 2021, which is the last election cycle that we talk about in our book about the program, the participation rate actually increased to almost 10%. Now, that is a huge increase by Seattle standards. So, looking at Seattle in 2021, compared to 2013 - it's about a 700% increase. But in addition to that, if we compare Seattle to other places around the country, including some cities that have matching funds programs, we see that in just those three cycles, Seattle comes out ahead in terms of its contributor rate or participation rate in local election financing. So Seattle is about 10% in 2021. New York City, in that same election cycle, is about 8%. And that was actually - 2021 was the first election cycle in New York that we had this increased matching rate of 8-to-1 instead of 6-to-1, which was our old program. So, in terms of participation, the program has increased the contributor rate by leaps and bounds and has made Seattle really a leader in local campaign financing in terms of people participating in that process.

The second thing that we looked at for voters is representation. And the idea here is that generally, when we look at the people who give money in elections, they look really different than voters and they look really different than the electorate broadly construed. So cash donors tend to be much whiter, they tend to be much wealthier, much older, they're predominantly male. And so the donor pool is really an unrepresentative slice of the population. After the voucher program came online, we started analyzing the characteristics of voucher users compared to those cash donors who are giving private donations - actual cash from their own funds. And what we found is that the voucher program has really moved the donor pool in a more egalitarian direction, so we're seeing that voucher users contain higher proportions of people of color, younger folks, lower income voters. So it's really moved the donor pool in Seattle toward a more representative group of people, relative to the cash donors that typically finance local elections in Seattle. So that's another important outcome on the voter side.

We also have some information about candidates - and we see similar things there. Many more candidates are running for local office, so candidate participation has increased. It's, in fact, doubled relative to the period before the voucher program. And we're also seeing upticks in diversity in the candidate pool within Seattle for City Council and mayoral elections as well.

[00:14:50] Crystal Fincher: That's one thing I was wondering about was - what is the impact on the candidate pool? It does seem like that it's good to know that there's data showing that it has increased the diversity of candidates who are running and the choices that Seattle residents have for who can represent them. I'm wondering about participation in the program from different candidates. Do all of the candidates participate? And what do candidates need to do in order to participate? How does it work from the candidate side, Estevan?

[00:15:22] Estevan Muñoz-Howard: The vast majority of candidates running for office in Seattle use the program. And I think it is a testament to the value that they see - they wouldn't use it if they didn't feel like it was going to be worth it. Of course, they can opt-in and they can opt-out, but the vast majority use it because they recognize the opportunity to dramatically increase their ability to fund their campaign. And to do it in a way that is values-aligned, that allows them to actually be out in the field instead of being in a room calling wealthy donors, which I don't think there is a candidate out there that really enjoys that part of the work - that's usually the hardest hurdle for candidates to get over. So instead of sitting on the phone, they can be out in the field. Thankfully, candidates in Seattle have recognized the value and are using it at very high rates. In fact, in 2023, I think 100% of the candidates running for local office used the program. And so we're excited to see the dramatic increase in usage among candidates, and we've had a number of candidates who have been very vocal about the fact that they only ran because the program exists - they wouldn't have done so otherwise.

To qualify for the program, a candidate needs to collect a certain number of signatures and small donations in order to demonstrate that they have a base of popular support. And it's different for different seats. For a mayoral race, you have to collect 600 signatures. For a citywide City Council and City Attorney race, you have to collect 400 signatures. And for districted City Council races, you have to collect 150 signatures. Some of these numbers evolve over the years, with the SEEC [Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission] in charge of actually determining how the program evolves. But essentially, a candidate collects a certain number of signatures and small donations - it can be donations as small as $10. Once you hit that threshold, then you are officially qualified to receive vouchers. It may be that, while you're collecting those signatures to qualify for the program, that vouchers are already being sent in with your name on them - in which case, they are sitting in a fund with the City waiting for you to qualify. And once you qualify, then that initial disbursement of those funds hits your account. And then, as the campaign continues, then periodically - I think on a weekly basis, or maybe even more quickly - periodically, those additional funds are dispersed to each candidate's account, and then they can use that money to fund their race.

A couple of other notes about the qualification process. In addition to collecting enough contributions and signatures to hit that initial threshold, you also have to commit to participating in three public debates. It's just a commitment to ensuring that you will be out there and you will participate fully as a candidate. And you agree to certain spending and fundraising limits, which is just a way for us to recognize that there are diminishing returns with more and more money raised, and there is a desire to cap, to slow the train when it comes to political spending. That, especially when it comes to public funds, we want to be reasonable. Ultimately, this is not about you raising the absolute most amount of money you can possibly raise. It's about you raising enough to run a competitive campaign. It's about removing that as a fundamental barrier to running in the first place, and making sure that you have enough money to get your name out there, to be viable, and for the money component to be less of an impediment to your viability.

[00:18:48] Crystal Fincher: Well, and I've heard a number of people who continue to have a concern about the influence of money - in politics overall, but including in Seattle, where we continue to see not only campaigns, Seattle campaigns raising large sums of cash, but also on the independent expenditure side, with PACs, political action committees, still raising and spending a lot of money in local elections. And there still being some real, dramatic differences between the money that candidates may each have in a race. In Seattle, a lot of times this is talked about in terms of corporate and business PAC influence, sometimes even union influence - moneyed interests who are able to still put together large sums of cash and sometimes still multiple times more than other candidates in those races. How has this impacted that dynamic, and has it made the kind of change that you think makes a difference and that you were hoping for at the outset of the program?

[00:19:55] Estevan Muñoz-Howard: I would say that absolutely it has made a significant difference in the funding landscape. There are moneyed interests across the political spectrum. There are people who are used to navigating the status quo, who feel more comfortable exercising power in the way that they always have. And so I think a little disruption is actually a really good thing across the board. But ultimately, I think the dynamic that we are paying the most attention to is how corporate interests have tried to dominate local politics in Seattle, especially with this being such a tech hub. We've seen interests from Amazon and Microsoft, and other corporations invest deeply in City Council races. 2019 is a really great example where Amazon dumped over a million and a half dollars as an unprecedented amount in seven districted City Council seats. And they lost every race, except for the one that was really uncontested - that everybody had already sort of gathered around. They lost every contested race, despite the vast money that they had invested in that election cycle. And I know that a major reason for that is because there was an alternative, because there was this narrative that people recognized - that big money is trying to buy local politics, and we don't want that. Instead, we can look for the candidate that truly is representing a different platform, that they are actually advocating for community interest. They're not just going to be a shill for big tech. And as a result - that year, in 2019, candidates who were benefiting from independent expenditures that were funded by Amazon and others were publicly trying to reject that money because they recognized that it was actually holding them back. And so the fact that more money would actually be a detriment to your campaign, I think is a sign of how far we've come - that there was this really great, viable alternative that you can just look for the candidate that's not getting funded by big tech. Instead, they were being funded by the people, by your neighbors, and by their constituents. And so I think that was a really great example of how that has been disrupted a bit in recent years.

[00:22:04] Crystal Fincher: Professor Heerwig, how have you seen that unfold and what has your analysis been?

[00:22:11] Professor Jennifer Heerwig: So, as I admitted earlier, I don't live in Seattle - I live in New York City. But that said, I've looked at the data for independent expenditures in a number of different cities in Washington state. And what I'll say from like a social science perspective, is that independent expenditures are not unique to Seattle. I know that Seattleites have the 2019 election in their memory as an election in which outside money really played a role and was very present. However, if you look around Washington state, there are many other localities that are also experiencing the deluge of IEs because of the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, which there's not much a municipality can do about. Since the analysis that we have in the book about independent expenditures, in which we show that Seattle is far from the only locality that has seen a rise in IEs, I've done some other analyses comparing Seattle to a handful of cities in California as well. And my theory has been and remains that much of what we're seeing in Seattle is a function - not of the Democracy Voucher program, but of the increase in competition in local elections. Money, especially outside money, tends to follow competition. So where are you going to put in an extra million or $2 million? It's in an election where that money might actually make a big difference. So competitive elections are always magnets for outside money - and this is true also for national elections. So in the analysis that I've done thus far - two points. One, Seattle is not the only municipality that has seen a really rapid growth in independent expenditures. And two, this growth in IEs seems to have to do with competition, more so than the Democracy Voucher program.

[00:24:04] Crystal Fincher: Now, some people have said that candidates who start early get an advantage because of Democracy Vouchers. And also that - hey, there have been campaigns that, just before, may have used a staffer to collect vouchers and not the candidates - so there are ways that campaigns can get around that. Have we seen any tweaks to the program in its existence? And how would you address some of those concerns that people have that you've heard - Estevan?

[00:24:34] Estevan Muñoz-Howard: Yeah, there have been some tweaks. Like with any new program, there will be some process where we learn more about it as it goes - it's never been done before. And I think overall, I have been struck by how consistent and effective the program has been since the beginning. I think the main architects behind it - shout out to Sightline Institute and Alan Durning and Rory O'Sullivan and the whole team of folks who were behind the actual initial drafting of the language. There were a number of educated guesses that we were making about how the program would work and how to structure it, the thresholds we should set. And of course, as it's being implemented, we learn more about how somebody might try to sort of use it to their advantage. And at the end of the day, that's to be expected, that is the point. People should try to figure out how this can be used so that they can be competitive - that's the entire purpose of the program.

That said, there was one instance in which there was a campaign that essentially brought on a consultant, and they were essentially just paying themselves out of the Democracy Vouchers that were being collected. And it created some controversy in terms of how the vouchers were being used - and was that actually the best use of that money, especially when that candidate was not actually very competitive overall. Ultimately, that resulted in some tweaks, where the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, which is charged with overseeing the program and making changes to it and overseeing how it is being implemented - they did what they're supposed to do, where they reviewed the program and made a change. Where they said - Actually, you have to be part of the campaign. You have to be the candidate or a volunteer who is fundamentally invested in that race. You can't be getting paid just to collect vouchers. And so they made that change and that was the rule for multiple cycles. Since then, that has been further amended, where now there are certain roles within a campaign, but you have to be staffed - you have to be part of the campaign, where as a campaign manager going door-to-door, you can also collect vouchers as well. So there's been some further amendment to make it more feasible for candidates to authentically, to genuinely go out and collect vouchers on their behalf without having them be the physical person at every door. And I think ultimately this has been the right process - that the SEEC needs to be charged with making these decisions, they need to receive feedback from the public about how it's being implemented and what the impact is. And then they can make some tweaks. And I think the program will continue to be refined in years to come. And that's the way the process should work - I see that as a really positive thing.

[00:27:13] Crystal Fincher: Are there any other persistent misunderstandings or myths about the program that you want to help bust for the public?

[00:27:21] Estevan Muñoz-Howard: So two that come to my mind. One is the cost of the program. I think people think that anything that's taxable is expensive. Ultimately, this is an incredible deal for the city. The program is funded with the smallest property tax in the city's history. This is a city that has loved to tax itself - that has had massive property tax increases for transit and schools and other purposes. But ultimately, this is literally the smallest property tax in the city's history and it has such a monumental impact on participation. Historically, the program was funded with a tax that essentially was close to $10 for the average household - a year. $10 a year for the average household is what would actually fund this program. Now, the program is back on the ballot - the levy that funds the Democracy Voucher program is back on the ballot in August, it'll be on the primary ballot. For that levy, the amount is changing to $13 a year, which is still - for the first campaign, we talked about this being the cost of two lattes. Of course, being in the city of Seattle, people talk about coffee. This is still two, right? It really hasn't changed - with inflation, and fundamentally, this increase is just all about recognizing the rising cost of everything. That running a campaign is going to cost a little bit more. And so the levy that will be on the ballot in the August primary reflects that. But again, it's the smallest tax in the city's history for a massive impact. So that's one.

I think the other myth that we heard - we haven't heard recently, and I think thankfully, it's because people have recognized that it doesn't hold a lot of water. But initially, people talked about this being welfare for politicians, that this is somehow - these are politicians that can't raise their own money, so now we have to give them a leg up. And it's using my money to fund somebody I disagree with and it's a violation of my First Amendment rights. And ultimately, the way we think of this is as public infrastructure. Or the city pays for sidewalks, because it's good for everybody. We pay for parks, we pay for roads, we pay for schools. There is all this infrastructure that is just fundamental to our daily life, that we need to be able to access and participate in. I don't get to claim that because my neighbor, who I hate, gets to walk on the sidewalk in front of my house, that that is a violation of my free speech, or you're misusing my money because it's supporting somebody I dislike. Ultimately, this is public infrastructure making it more feasible for us all to participate in our democracy, to participate in the political process that determines who actually drives our city's agenda. And as we know, in the past, that was dominated by wealthy donors. 8,000 people across the city were making all the decisions about who would get elected. And we're changing that by making it more feasible for regular people, for all of us, to participate and put our drop in the bucket into the right buckets. And we're creating new buckets that we can actually fill and ensuring that our voices are being represented by the people who are running to lead our city. And ultimately, I think that that's worth it.

[00:30:25] Crystal Fincher: Certainly makes a difference. Professor Heerwig, you are in New York - certainly, news of the recent New York election has made national news, lots of people reacting to it in Seattle. But we're having this conversation - this will be on the ballot as we are having so many conversations about the importance of democracy, the importance of the infrastructure that supports democracy, and regular people having a voice - being able to participate in the government that determines so much about their daily lives. Why is this program important in the larger conversation? And why is it important in Seattle, particularly?

[00:31:11] Professor Jennifer Heerwig: It's a great question. I mean, look, Seattle has become an example for so many other cities and states that are thinking about how to deepen democracy in their communities. And we see in Seattle, even though this is a really young program - this is only the fifth full cycle of the program that you're in right now. Despite that, the program has increased participation, it has made your donor pool more representative, it has brought in more candidates, it's made your elections more competitive. And seeing all of these results in such a short period of time, I think has kind of forced people to think about the ways in which we can change our institutions to deepen democracy. And in particular, whether or not how we do public campaign financing really does impact the outcomes. And it's also really centered the idea that we have to think about which outcomes we care about. What are the things that we want to achieve with this program? And if we're clear about that, then we can think about institutional remedies for those problems. So in New York, certainly we have a matching funds program, and I have also been studying the New York City program in tandem. And as I said a little bit earlier, the participation rate in New York - even though New York's program is decades-old, our participation rate is still less than Seattle's was in 2021. So this has become the poster child for a new model of how to do public campaign financing. It, as Estevan said, is a pretty cheap program. Even though it's millions of dollars - if you look at the City budget, it's a drop in the bucket. It's a very cheap program, and it has really move the needle in a way across a range of different dimensions in local politics that I think are really meaningful. And that in years to come, we may see more results, more data coming in that suggests that the program is working on multiple dimensions that we maybe even hadn't thought about to begin with. So Seattle is, again, poster child for this new way of doing public campaign financing. And I think places across the country are - and actually across the world - are following Seattle and how it's changed local politics.

[00:33:28] Estevan Muñoz-Howard: If I could jump in on that as well. One of the things that I have been most excited about as an outcome from this program is the potential for it to disrupt the cycle of disengagement, which - if you think about a normal city that doesn't have public financing, the system doesn't just incentivize talking to wealthy donors to fund your campaign. It demands that you spend hours talking to wealthy people to fund your campaign. And in doing so, you're going to listen to their interests. And you're going to know that if you want to run for re-election, this issue they talked to you about - you're going to have to have something to show for it. Otherwise, you're not going to get that funding in the future. And so it fundamentally impacts how people think about not just what it takes to run and be competitive, but your role in the system - that you have to speak to these interests. And how does that normally play out? With a typical campaign, if there isn't a system by which you can operate differently, then you have to think about - Okay, who am I going to target? I'm going to think first about the universe of most-likely voters. Most- likely voters tend to be older, tend to be whiter, tend to be wealthier. You're going to focus on these communities because you know that if I'm going to run for election - the people I'm going to talk to - I don't want to waste my time on people who aren't going to turn out anyway. And so I'm going to focus on raising money from wealthy people. And I'm going to focus my turnout on reaching those communities that are most likely to turn out. And then from there, if you have time - and I've talked to a lot of campaign managers about this - if you have time or if you have extra money, then you also put some effort into reaching young people, or reaching low-income communities, or communities of color, or reaching other parts of the city that maybe don't fall within that map - the neighborhoods that you're carving out to focus your campaign on. But of course, as everybody knows, most campaigns are - if they are competitive, you don't have extra time and you don't have extra money. You're still gonna focus your energy on those communities. And so when you don't show up at those other doors, then these communities don't feel like you care about them. You're not coming to talk to them about the issues. You're not asking them for money. You're not speaking to their experience. And so, of course, it's less likely that they're going to turn out and vote for you. And then when they don't vote, then you justify not reaching out to them in the next cycle. Because, like - Well, see, they didn't give me any money and they didn't vote, and so why would I focus on them again? And so it's a cycle that actively disengages communities from the process.

Whereas I think with the Democracy Voucher program, there is this potential and we've seen it from some of the research. Win Win Network did some research, I think back in 2021, that found that after residents used the Democracy Voucher, they were significantly more likely to vote in that election - in particular, among first-time voters and low-propensity voters, so voters that had voted in fewer than half the elections for which they were eligible. So these are communities that have been caught up in that cycle of disengagement - that oftentimes are not being prioritized, they're not being talked to. When they use a voucher, they are significantly more likely to vote in that election. Not only that, they're more likely to vote in future elections - which then means that once they use a voucher, now they're a likely donor for a future campaign. And once they vote, they're a likely voter for a future campaign. And so then the next cycle - not only are publicly financed candidates more likely to prioritize reaching out to them because they'll use a voucher and they will vote. But now, privately financed candidates are also incentivized to reach out to them. Because they know that if I don't talk to that community, if I don't talk to that voter, they're more likely to vote for my publicly financed opponent. And so I think there is this potential to fundamentally disrupt the cycle of disengagement that can result in a future that is the future that we want to see, that ultimately brings us closer to that reflective democracy that we've always needed. And I think the accessibility of this program is fundamental to any future of representative democracy. We will not have a representative democracy if our systems are not accessible. And this is one critical step forward in achieving that.

[00:37:44] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - I think that's really important. And something that is opaque to a lot of regular people, normal people who are not involved in campaigns and paying attention to what's happening there - is how much time is spent fundraising. And, to your point, talking to people who have a tradition of donating on their own, who have a tradition of participating on their own. I think a lot of people have, whether it's from watching the West Wing or other things, this conception of campaigns as you're hammering out policy behind the scenes. Then you go to a parade and then you go to a forum. And no. What the majority of time a candidate - when they're not doing a forum, when they're not in an interview or working on a questionnaire, there's quite a few of those - is just calling people on the phone. You'll hear it referred to as "call time." Candidates spend literal hours every day just dialing for dollars because of the way that our system is designed. And what I have certainly seen is that the Democracy Voucher model has changed that significantly - where the amount of time that they're spending interfacing with the public is dramatically increasing. The ways that they are able to engage with the public, engage deeply in communities - particularly communities that may not be participating as frequently or to the level of others - often because they don't see it as relevant, they don't see themselves reflected there. But it is changing that dynamic, and I have certainly been heartened to see that.

So this is going to be on the primary election ballot in August. These ballots are going to be mailed on July 16th, they'll start arriving in mailboxes on July 17th - that's when ballot drop boxes are going to open. And so we have vote-by-mail in this state, which is another wonderful thing - so you can fill out your ballot, get it back in as soon as possible and participate.

For people who have not engaged with Democracy Vouchers - don't know if they have them yet, may not have received them - who is eligible to get them? And how do they get Democracy Vouchers to give to a candidate of their choice?

[00:40:09] Estevan Muñoz-Howard: All adult residents in the city of Seattle who are eligible to make a political contribution - who are eligible to contribute under federal law - are able to access and use Democracy Vouchers. And so that's inclusive - not just of registered voters and citizens, but also long-term permanent residents in the United States. And that was as inclusive as the program could possibly be - that was our intention. We wanted to make sure that this was not just focused on registered voters or citizens, because there is a much broader population that is impacted by our city's leadership and the policies that they pursue. So we wanted to make sure that it was as inclusive as legally possible. And so, if you are a registered voter, you should have received Democracy Vouchers in the mail already, unless you have already signed up to receive it digitally. If you did not receive it or you lost it, you can go to the City's website. If you just Google Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission or SEEC Seattle Democracy Vouchers, it'll pop up. There is a link online on the City's website where you can request new vouchers. You can also click a link to sign up for the digital version so you could access it through the portal. If you're not a registered voter, then you can also use the same search to go to the City's website. There's a very simple form that you fill out that will allow you to opt-in to receive those vouchers. Again, it just is providing the city with your address and you attesting that - Yes, I am a resident of Seattle, I live here and I'm eligible to receive these vouchers. And then they will send those to you as well. So that is the way that you can access them.

We're excited about every year - the program growing and more and more people participating. We've seen a lot of new participants in each cycle, a lot of people using vouchers for the first time every year. I think that's a good thing. We want more people to be signing up and understanding how it works. And I hope folks are able to certainly encourage everybody to vote for this in August. I think this program is incredibly important for our city and for the future of democracy - not just here, but also the example it sets for the rest of the country. And so, looking forward to seeing this pass in August.

[00:42:20] Crystal Fincher: And I guess that comes to another question I had is - what happens if this doesn't pass? Does the program end in Seattle?

[00:42:29] Estevan Muñoz-Howard: If the levy is not renewed in August, then the program would have, I think, one more cycle that it could actually fulfill its obligations. But then, essentially, the fund would run out of money. And the SEEC, the City's staff who administer the program - there'd have to be some decisions about the future. Do they reduce the amount of money that's available? Do they reduce the number of vouchers so that they can extend the life of the program as long as possible? There would, theoretically, be additional pathways to explore other options for emergency funding down the line. The City Council and the Mayor can also decide to make a case for funding this out of the general fund. The challenge, of course, is that the City is facing a budget deficit. And so right now, the best option is for this, again, tiny - comparatively tiny - levy to be renewed, which would allow the program to continue. And we can continue to see its positive impact for another 10 years.

[00:43:29] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, thank you both for joining us today - appreciate learning more about the Democracy Voucher program and learning more about the Proposition that's going to be on the August 5th election ballot. Make sure you get your ballots returned by August 5th. And thank you so much for your time.

[00:43:49] Estevan Muñoz-Howard: And one more time - vote Yes on Proposition 1 on August 5th. Thank you so much.

[00:43:56] Professor Jennifer Heerwig: Thank you.

[00:43:58] Crystal Fincher: Professor Heerwig, Estevan Muñoz-Howard - thank you so much for joining us.

Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Bluesky @HacksAndWonks. You can find me on Bluesky at @finchfrii - that's F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com.

Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.