$5 A MONTH TO HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE
🌈🐣🌼🌷🌱🌳🌾🍀🍃🦔🐇🐝🐑🌞🌻
Subscribe to CHS to help us hire writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. To stay that way, we need you.
Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for $5 a month -- or choose your level of support 👍
With reporting by Hannah Saunders
The race for the citywide Position 8 seat on the Seattle City Council has begun — again. It will be another Seattle political battle powered in part by the city’s Democracy Voucher program. Seattle leaders are still sorting out exactly how the program has changed elections in the city even as efforts are being shaped to create a new voucher program here that could power another key element of democracy: newspapers and news websites like CHS.
Voters will be asked to renew the existing Democracy Voucher program next year.
“I look forward to seeing refinements to the program that help it better reach its public policy goals and increase awareness!,” Alex Hudson, who utilized the program in her race against Joy Hollingsworth last November in District 3, said.
“Seeing usage increase would be great,” Hudson says.
In 2015, voters passed multiple campaign finance reforms which led to the birth of democracy vouchers. To fund the Democracy Voucher Program for a total of ten years, voters approved a property taxation of $3 million annually. According to the city, the program costs the average homeowner around $8 per year, and properties involved include commercial, businesses, and residential facilities.
Under the program, candidates using democracy vouchers to run for the eligible positions of mayor, citywide council seats, or council district seats must agree to a fundraising cap. Hollingsworth and Hudson were capped at just over $187,000 for the cycle. The cap can be lifted if an opponent or third-party political action committees spend more.
In the D3 race, Hollingsworth received a total of 6,016 democracy vouchers, which reeled in $150,400 — about 70% of her total contributions. Hudson garnered 4,722 democracy vouchers that brought in $118,050 for her campaign efforts — also about 70% of her total.
But many D3 democracy vouchers never made it off the breakfast table. Only around 30,000 vouchers were collected in the 2023 races meaning tens of thousands of vouchers went unused.
Seattle voters receive four $25 democracy vouchers from the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission. From there, residents write down the name of their preferred candidate, the date, and their signature on the voucher. The vouchers are either sent directly to the candidate’s campaign or mailed to the SEEC which is in charge of approving the completed vouchers.
The city advises disposing of unused democracy vouchers in the recycling bin. The unused money rolls into the following election cycle and new democracy voucher will be printed.
The vouchers will play a big role in the Position 8 race.
International District business and community leader Tanya Woo was selected by the council earlier in 2024 to complete the last year of the term after the move of Teresa Mosqueda to the King County Council. Now, the race is starting for the next four-year term in the Position 8 seat.
Woo was first to announce her candidacy and has strong support in the International District for her stances on public safety and increased police spending and has seen as a leader in the successful effort to stop a planned King County homelessness shelter expansion in near the ID in 2022. Woo hasn’t been an election success, losing the race for District 2 to Tammy Morales last year. She’ll now be campaigning across the city.
Woo is taking part in the Democracy Voucher program.
So are her challengers. “Central District renter and homelessness policy wonk” Alexis Mercedes Rinck is in the race. Rinck is a director at the King County Regional Homelessness Authority and an assistant director for policy, planning, and state operations at the University of Washington.
Seattle University and Seattle Central Community College product Saunatina Sanchez is also bringing her experience working with community groups and grassroots organizing to the battle for Position 8. She has been a leader at the Transit Riders Union as well as worked with groups including Community Roots Housing.
A fourth challenger, Tariq Yusuf, is a technology policy and privacy expert and a veteran of Google and Meta who now works as a consultant who also tossed his hat in the ring during the appointment process when Woo was selected.
Whether more challengers from the appointment process re-emerge remains to be seen.
Woo, owner of the Louisa Hotel, overcame challenges from Seattle School Board member and Capitol Hill resident Vivian Song who was backed by strong support from labor groups during the appointment process. She also rose above West Precinct commander Capt. Steven Strand, a Seattle Police Department veteran who was seen by some as an opportunity to potentially bandage morale issues with the city’s police force. Newly elected District 3 representative Joy Hollingsworth supported Linh Thai, a public affairs expert and speaker with experience in Congressman Adam Smith’s office.
Thanks in part to democracy vouchers, the challenger roster for Position 8 is likely to grow before the August primary. The District 3 race in 2024 is a good example of a typical Seattle primary field in the democracy voucher era — there were nine candidates to choose from.
Meanwhile, Seattle could be considering a new companion program to democracy vouchers designed to help support the system of representative government by funding what some believe is a key tenet. Organizers for a potential ballot initiative to create a “Local News Grants” voucher program that could in some ways mirror the Democracy Voucher program are considering a 2024 “Save Seattle News” campaign.
As for democracy vouchers, this past election cycle, the city set aside $225,000 to go towards better outreach around the program including contracting work to translate program materials. The city says it plans to continue education efforts in partnerships with community groups as well as spending some of that cash on a more direct approach like advertising on buses.
$5 A MONTH TO HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE
🌈🐣🌼🌷🌱🌳🌾🍀🍃🦔🐇🐝🐑🌞🌻
Subscribe to CHS to help us hire writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. To stay that way, we need you.
Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for $5 a month -- or choose your level of support 👍
Voters treat vouchers like free money – and are willing to give the “free money” to the first candidate who asks.
One simple fix: require that vouchers be paired with a small cash contribution from the voter. For example, 80% of a donation can be with vouchers, but 20% must be in cash. Voters would donate to a candidate because they actually support the candidate, not simply because the candidate was the first one to ask.
Maybe the cash minimum is 10%, maybe it’s 25%. Anything in the 10-25% range means that the voter actually cares. This is how the program was pitched to voters.
It sounds like the problem they are trying to solve is rather the opposite: voters are not treating vouchers like free money, and don’t give them away as willingly as the designers of the program hoped they would.
Worse than free money, they end up in a stack of forgotten papers then shredded and recycled after the election period. Free money I’d actually use.
The whole point is to allow voters, who don’t typically have the means to financially support any candidates, to contribute to candidates of their choice. How or whom they support is none of your business.
This is needed to counteract Citizens United, which basically equates money with speech. The more money you have, the easier it is to influence politics. You can call it “free money” to try to denigrate the program all you want, but it’s important.
I think the main issue with the program is that until last fall’s election, there hasn’t been a major election to test the program with. Next years mayoral and at-large councilmember races will be a major test.
These things are super fun. Usually the person who gets the most finishes dead last (Logan Bowers, the dead beat architect guy running for mayor).
I would hardly put Logan Bowers, who was a serious candidate, in the same category as that grifter ACE the Architect
Logan Bowers is now on Hollingsworth’s staff, if I am not mistaken.