Seattle’s System Passed by Over 60% of City Voters in 2015

OLYMPIA, WA – Today, the Washington Supreme Court will hear oral arguments at 4:30pm ET in Elster v. City of Seattle, a First Amendment challenge to Seattle’s pioneering public financing system.

The Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County found the city’s public financing system constitutional in a November 2017 opinion that said that the program was a valid tool for the city government to foster citizen involvement in elections, calling that goal “vital to a self-governing people.” Plaintiffs have challenged this ruling to the highest court in the state of Washington. If plaintiffs are successful and the court overturn the Superior Court’s ruling, it would strike a blow not only to campaign finance reform efforts nationwide but to the constitutional principle of self-governance.

Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program was approved by over 60 percent of city voters in 2015. The program – which went into effect in 2017 – offers any eligible adult city resident who is a U.S. citizen with four $25 “democracy vouchers” to give to qualified candidates of their choosing.

Available data from Seattle show that the democracy voucher program has already spurred impressive levels of local engagement. According to the University of Washington’s Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology, a total of 20,727 Seattle residents used their vouchers to contribute to local candidates in 2017. In addition to increasing the absolute number of city residents who contributed, Seattle’s voucher program attracted a more diverse makeup of donors to local campaigns. Compared to individuals giving a private cash contribution in Seattle’s 2017 election, voucher users were more likely to be low-to-middle income and to reside in the city’s poorest neighborhoods. Further, the population of voucher donors contained a higher share of minority groups and residents under the age of 30 than the cash contributor pool.

The following groups gave statements in support of Seattle’s Democracy Dollars program:

Paul Smith, vice president at Campaign Legal Center (CLC):

“Seattle’s public financing system loosens the stranglehold that large donors have had over the terms of political debate. This case is not only about protecting campaign finance reform efforts around the country, it’s about upholding the constitutional principle of self-governance. Seattle citizens spoke loud and clear when they overwhelmingly passed the Honest Elections Seattle Initiative. The court should prioritize the First Amendment rights of city residents, by giving more people an opportunity to have their voices heard in our democracy.”

Adam Lioz, political director of Demos:

“Seattle’s Democracy Voucher program builds upon a long and clearly legal legacy of using limited public funds to ensure that a diverse range of residents drive local public election campaigns—not a narrow slice of the wealthiest donors, who are overwhelmingly white.  The voucher program serves the compelling First Amendment interest in promoting democratic self-government by reducing wealth-based barriers to entry, increasing the pool of candidates for elected office, and ensuring people of color—and anyone without thousands of dollars to spare for political contributions—can have their voices heard in the decisions that govern their lives.  We look forward to the Washington Supreme Court confirming what is already clear—the voucher program raises all City residents’ voices while silencing nobody, and is a win for local democracy.”

Tiffany Muller, president of End Citizens United:

“By publicly financing elections, Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program is not only changing the status quo – it’s rapidly expanding voter engagement and restoring power back to the people. More women, young people, and communities of color are participating in their democracy than ever before. The program has been so successful that municipalities, cities, and states across the country are looking to Seattle as a model to help root out the influence of Big Money. End Citizens United supports Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program and we urge the Washington Superior Court for King County to uphold it.”

--

CLC and Common Cause filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Sept. 20, 2017 in support of the city’s public financing system.

Learn more about Seattle’s public financing system by visiting CLC’s action page.

NASHVILLE, TN – Campaign Legal Center (CLC), the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Tennessee, and Fair Elections Center filed a federal lawsuit today challenging a new Tennessee law that imposes substantial penalties on groups that foster political participation through voter registration efforts. 

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Tennessee, American Muslim Advisory Council, Mid-South Peace & Justice Center, Rock the Vote, and Spread the Vote.

Tennessee ranks 44th in voter registration, but during the 2018 midterm election the state saw a surge in registrations. Instead of providing greater resources to help election offices process the influx, the Tennessee General Assembly instead passed a measure that creates criminal and civil penalties against those who fail to comply with onerous requirements and turn in “incomplete” applications. The governor signed the bill into law last week.

The complaint charges the new law violates freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, and the fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Along with the lawsuit, the groups filed a notice letter to the state citing violations of the National Voter Registration Act.

The following statements are from:

Paul Smith, vice president, Campaign Legal Center:
“Tennessee’s law has created the country’s most aggressive penalties for voter registration drives. If the court does not intervene, the state will unlawfully chill the efforts of organizations working to get people registered. Voter registration drives for years have been a way for historically marginalized groups to empower their communities and gain access to the ballot box. We are taking Tennessee to court to protect that tradition against government threats of fines and jail time.”

Sophia Lakin, staff attorney, ACLU’s Voting Rights Project: 
“Tennessee politicians are punishing civic organizations that advocate for people’s right to participate in the political process and assist Tennesseans in registering to vote. With its dismal voter registration rates, Tennessee needs these groups on the ground. What politicians should instead be doing is making sure that local election officials have the adequate resources to do their jobs. Silencing civic groups’ voices is not the solution.”

Hedy Weinberg, executive director, ACLU of Tennessee: 
“The right to vote is the bedrock of our democracy and voter registration drives are a precursor for many to exercise that right. Voter registration drives have long been a way for communities that are historically disenfranchised — including students, people of color, immigrants, and senior citizens — to empower individuals and gain access to the ballot box. The ACLU filed this lawsuit because we are committed to ensuring political participation for all eligible voters.”

Marian Ott, president, League of Women Voters of Tennessee: 
“Voter registration drives are vital to registering and engaging Tennesseans in our democracy. This new law exposes voter registration drives and online voter communication to criminal and civil penalties. SB971 will have a chilling impact on voter outreach efforts in a state that ranks 45th in the nation in voter registration.”

Paul Garner, organizing director, Mid-South Peace and Justice Center:
"It is already hard enough to get people registered to vote in Tennessee. What this draconian law effectively does is punish those that want the democratic process to reflect and represent as many people as possible in communities like Memphis. It is voter suppression, plain and simple.”

Michelle Kanter Cohen, counsel, Fair Elections Center:
“Voter registration drives are critical to making sure that everyone gets an equal voice in our democracy. Instead of penalizing honest civic engagement efforts, Tennessee should be opening doors to participation, not shutting them in the faces of community-based registration drives who are working to engage fellow citizens.” 

Carolyn DeWitt, president and executive director, Rock The Vote:
“Young voters are new voters and as a result they are often overlooked. Third parties play a significant role in our democracy, ensuring all interested and eligible voters are able to exercise their freedom to vote. By undercutting national and community groups’ abilities to effectively reach and mobilize marginalized communities, including young people, this new law would have a detrimental affect on our democracy.”

Marissa Goldfaden Bleier, general counsel and communications director, Spread the Vote:
“Spread the Vote has been helping people overcome various barriers to the ballot box for two years. This law will have a chilling effect on voter registration, further disenfranchising marginalized communities. We’re proud to fight it alongside other voting rights organizations.”

The lawsuit, League of Women Voters v. Hargett, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Co-counsel also includes Sherrard, Roe, Voigt & Harbison PLC.

Learn more about the case.

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and End Citizens United (ECU) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against President Trump’s campaign for issuing an official statement Tuesday that seemingly solicited unlimited contributions to a pro-Trump super PAC, America First Action. Candidates or their campaigns may only solicit contributions for super PACs within federal limits.

“If candidates are not punished for working hand-in-hand with super PACs, campaigns will stretch the legal boundaries until there is no way to prevent the corruption of candidates beholden to big money,” said Adav Noti, senior director and chief of staff at CLC. “The ban on candidates raising unlimited amounts for super PACs is an important check on the influence of megadonors, but the Trump campaign suggested that donors give to a super PAC without any contribution limits. The FEC must impose serious penalties for this illegal solicitation.”

“No one is above the law, including President Trump. The Trump campaign’s brazen attempt to break the wall between candidates and super PACs demonstrates how broken and inadequate our campaign finance system is and why we need reform,” said Tiffany Muller, president of End Citizens United. “The campaign’s official statement directs special interests and the President’s mega-donor friends to contribute unlimited money to a pro-Trump super PAC. The FEC should investigate and impose the highest possible sanction on the Trump campaign for this violation of the law.”

Federal law and FEC regulations prohibit campaigns from soliciting contributions to super PACs unless certain critical measures are taken to ensure that the solicited contributions comply with federal contribution limits and prohibitions. The Trump campaign took no such measures in its solicitation Tuesday, instead issuing a blanket endorsement of contributions to the “approved” super PAC – contributions that would include corporate and unlimited funds, which federal candidates are prohibited from soliciting.