Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Seattle public campaign financing law

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Seattle’s innovative public campaign financing program in the case of Elster v. City of Seattle

In 2015, Seattle voters enacted a novel democracy voucher program for public campaign financing.  Under the democracy voucher program, eligible Seattle residents receive four $25 vouchers that they can use to support the candidates of their choice running for city office. The program was considered successful in its first election (2017). But absentee property owners, represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, challenged the program in Washington state court as supposedly violating their First Amendment rights.

Free Speech For People worked with Demos to jointly present this amicus curiae brief on behalf of the coalition of local and national organizations that helped pass the initiative: Washington CAN!, Asian Counseling and Referral Service, Every Voice, Fuse, LGBTQ Allyship, OneAmerica, the Washington Democracy Hub, Washington Public Interest Research Group, and Win Win Network.

As our brief argues, the democracy voucher program serves important First Amendment interests in strengthening local democracy in Seattle by combating both actual and perceived corruption in Seattle politics; increasing access to public expression and expanding public debate; and advancing the compelling interest in promoting democratic self-government. The democracy voucher program is a home run for both democracy and the First Amendment: it gives more people a political voice and encourages more people to run for office while silencing no one. The brief also presented our new empirical analysis showing that the voucher program helps promote democratic self-government by enabling Seattle candidates to run for office without relying on out-of-town donors.

On July 11, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the initiative. On March 30, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of certiorari, thus ending the challenge

Read more about this case in our blog post when we filed our brief, and our announcement after the state supreme court upheld the initiative.

Comments are closed.