Mayor Harrell proposes renewal of Democracy Voucher Program
According to Mayor Harrell's office, the program sends eligible Seattle residents four $25 vouchers to then donate those funds to a candidate of their choice.
'Democracy vouchers have allowed more people to participate in campaign financing in our city, making the political process more accessible and inclusive. Renewing this program shows Seattle's commitment to ensuring that all voices – regardless of income or background – can help shape the future of our city,' Mayor Harrell said.
Voters approved the program in 2015 and it was first implemented in 2017. The new proposal would renew the program over the next 10 years and would cost $45 million in property taxes over that span, according to the press release from Mayor Harrell's office.
The program has faced opposition in the past. In 2017, Seattle residents Mark Elster and Sarah Pynchon sued the city in Elster V. City of Seattle arguing the voucher program violated the First Amendment and, 'forced property owners to pay for the political speech of others,' according to the Pacific Legal Foundation.
The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that 'the program does not violate the First Amendment,' allowing the program to continue.
Mark Elster and Sarah Pynchon filed a petition with the Supreme Court of the United States but the court declined to review the case, according to the Pacific Legal Foundation.
If the renewal is approved by voters, the city says it will work on improvements to reach more diverse communities in 2026.
For more information on the Seattle Democracy Voucher Program visit: seattle.gov/democracyvoucher
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Judge blocks Trump FTC's ‘retaliation' against liberal media watchdog
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's investigation of a liberal advocacy group known for its campaigns against Rupert Murdoch's Fox News and Elon Musk's X. Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan cited evidence that the investigation, which was opened by the Federal Trade Commission last spring, was an act of retaliation against the advocacy group, Media Matters for America. The judge granted a preliminary injunction because, she wrote, 'Media Matters is likely to succeed in its First Amendment retaliation claim, which is all it needs at this stage.' Media Matters has been a thorn in the side of Musk and his X social network for years. The group has published numerous reports about the prevalence of violent and hateful posts on X, leading Musk to call them an 'evil propaganda machine' hellbent on harming his business by turning off advertisers. Musk sued Media Matters in response; the group has countersued, and some Republican elected officials have backed Musk. The overarching charge is that liberal activists have colluded with advertisers to hurt conservative platforms and chill speech. Some of the advertisers Musk has sued have fought back, arguing that he has resorted to legal and political maneuvers 'to win back the business X lost in the free market when it disrupted its own business and alienated many of its customers.' With President Trump back in power, Musk and other Media Matters opponents have felt emboldened. Media Matters alleged 'retribution' when the FTC said it was probing possible collusion. Media Matters filed suit against the FTC seeking legal relief, which is what Sooknanan delivered on Friday, though the court battle is likely to continue. An FTC spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the court order. Media Matters, which has been seriously hampered by Musk and company, said the injunction is a symbol of effective resistance to the Trump administration. 'The court's ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration,' Media Matters president Angelo Carusone said in a statement. 'This case is not just about the campaign to punish and silence Media Matters, however,' he said. 'It is a critical test for whether the courts will allow any administration — from any political party — to bully media and non-profit organizations through illegal abuses of power.'
Engadget
3 hours ago
- Engadget
Court blocks FTC investigation into Media Matters' alleged scheme against X
The court has blocked the Federal Trade Commission's investigation into Media Matters, the media nonprofit that previously published research showing that ads appeared on X alongside neo-Nazi and other antisemitic content. In 2023, Elon Musk's X filed a lawsuit against the media watchdog following an advertiser exodus. It accused Media Matters of "knowingly and maliciously manufactur[ing] side-by-side images depicting advertisers' posts on X Corp.'s social media platform beside Neo-Nazi and white national fringe content." Just this May, the FTC started looking into whether the nonprofit violated antitrust laws by allegedly colluding with advertising and advocacy groups to boycott X. In June, Media Matters sued the FTC, accusing it of unfairly targeting the group in retaliation for past criticisms of X. "The Federal Trade Commission seeks to punish Media Matters for its journalism and speech in exposing matters of substantial public concern — including how has enabled and profited from extremist content that proliferated after Elon Musk took over the platform formerly known as Twitter," the group said at the time. Now, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan has granted a preliminary injunction in the nonprofit's favor. Sooknanan has agreed with the group that the FTC's investigation is "a retaliatory act" and has noted that it is "likely to succeed on its First Amendment retaliation claim." She wrote in her decision that such probes would deter other reporters from speaking again. "Indeed, the FTC's [investigation] has had its intended effect." Apparently, because of the probe, Media Matters has "decided against pursuing certain stories about the FTC, Chairman Ferguson, and Mr. Musk." "The court's ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration," Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters, told The New York Times . "We will continue to stand up and fight for the First Amendment rights that protect every American." As the publication notes, courts had also blocked investigations into the group by the attorneys general in Texas and Missouri. Musk's lawsuits against the nonprofit, however, are still ongoing.
Newsweek
10 hours ago
- Newsweek
Same-Sex Marriage Turnback 'Possible But Unlikely', Legal Experts Say
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Ten years after Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the Supreme Court is being asked to revisit the landmark ruling. Mathew Staver, counsel for petitioner Kim Davis, told Newsweek he believes the case could overturn Obergefell. However, several other legal experts say the widely accepted law is unlikely to be reversed. The Context The petitioner is Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk jailed in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing her religious beliefs. Davis argues Obergefell v. Hodges was wrongly decided and that her refusal was protected under the First Amendment. Under U.S. law, a party can petition the Supreme Court to review a case after lower courts have ruled against them, typically by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court is not required to hear the case—it selects only a small fraction of petitions, often those raising significant constitutional questions, resolving conflicts among lower courts, or addressing issues with broad national impact. Davis and her legal team are asking the justices to take up her case as a vehicle to reconsider Obergefell itself. What People Are Saying Newsweek asked experts to assess the petition's chances and the legal, moral, and procedural factors that could influence the Court's decision. 10 Years Of Marriage Equality By Supreme Court Could Be Reviewed 10 Years Of Marriage Equality By Supreme Court Could Be Reviewed Anthony Behar/AP Here are their exclusive responses: Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Counsel "This case presents compelling facts for the Supreme Court to review. Kim Davis asked for a reasonable accommodation of her religious belief—to remove her name from marriage certificates. That request was granted by newly elected Governor Matt Bevin in December 2015, and in April 2016, the legislature unanimously passed a law allowing clerks to remove their names from certificates. Yet she was sued, jailed for six days, and now faces a personal judgment exceeding $360,000. "We are asking the Court to affirm her First Amendment defense and to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. We are optimistic because three current justices—Chief Justice Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito—dissented in Obergefell. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, five justices ruled that substantive due process is not grounded in the Constitution and that the Court should remain neutral when the Constitution does not expressly provide a right. Obergefell is likewise grounded in that now-rejected doctrine, and the Court should remain neutral regarding marriage as it did in 2022 regarding abortion. "We need four justices for certiorari and five to win. We believe this is the case that can overturn Obergefell." William Powell, Georgetown Law "We are confident the Supreme Court, like the court of appeals, will conclude Davis's arguments do not merit further attention. Marriage equality is settled law." Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Berkeley Law "I think it is unlikely the Court will overrule Obergefell, though it is possible. Marriage equality is deeply entrenched and widely accepted in American society. Roberts, Thomas, and Alito all dissented in Obergefell. I expect Thomas and Alito would vote to overturn. Roberts's position is uncertain, though the only dissent he ever read from the bench was in Obergefell. Justice Gorsuch wrote a dissent in Pavan v. Smith sharply criticizing Obergefell. What about Kavanaugh and Barrett? There may be the votes, but my instinct is the Court is unlikely to do so. It is not controversial in the way Roe v. Wade remained." Camilla Taylor, Lambda Legal "This case's procedural posture is simply not an appropriate one for reconsidering Obergefell. Other cases might provide a 'cooler vehicle,' but they are nowhere near ready for Supreme Court review. While the threat is some distance off, this is a Supreme Court that has shown it will casually overturn decades of precedent and upend civil rights. "If reversed, it would create a patchwork of states where same-sex marriage is legal in some places but banned in others. The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) ensures states must recognize marriages performed elsewhere and the federal government will do the same. Public opinion now enjoys broad, majoritarian support for same-sex marriage. Justice Kennedy's Obergefell opinion noted that denying marriage sends the message that families are 'lesser' and 'something of which they should feel ashamed'—a stigma the government was required to address. That belief remains relevant: you shouldn't brand classes of people as lesser simply because of who they love." Ilya Somin, George Mason University "If Obergefell were overturned, most states—due to over 70% public support—would still have same-sex marriage, but perhaps eight or nine socially conservative states would not. That would raise questions about how to handle same-sex couples who married while Obergefell was in effect. RFMA requires states to recognize marriages contracted elsewhere, but in non-issuing states it would still be a hassle. "The end of Roe was unsurprising because opponents saw abortion as akin to murder. By contrast, very few opponents of same-sex marriage assign it a moral weight equal to murder. Davis's case is weaker legally because she was a public official exercising state power. Accepting her argument could open the door to refusals for interracial or interfaith marriages on religious grounds. I doubt there are five votes to overturn Obergefell, estimating no more than two or three justices might favor it, though nothing is certain." Gene C. Schaerr, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP "It is very unlikely the Supreme Court will revisit Obergefell soon, though challenges will continue. Roberts once compared it to Dred Scott, but reliance interests are massive. Hundreds of thousands of couples have relied on it in arranging their most intimate and important life relationships. Overruling such a decision would create popular distrust in the judiciary. Justice Scalia believed in factoring reliance interests; Justice Thomas does not. The notion of destroying marriages and undoing family relationships would be extremely difficult for the Court to justify." What Happens Next For the Supreme Court to hear the case, at least four justices must agree to grant certiorari. The Court selects only a small fraction of petitions, focusing on those with significant constitutional issues or conflicting lower-court rulings.
