SEATTLE -- An effort in Washington's largest city aimed at making elections better reflect the will of voters is getting some new funding.

The Center for Election Science is making a $70,000 grant to Seattle Approves, and four other groups around the country.

Seattle Approves wants to change the city's primary elections so that voters select all the candidates they support, rather than just one.

Logan Bowers, a former Seattle city council candidate, saw voters struggle with a crowded field of candidates, and thinks approval voting would make the process easier.

"If there's two candidates that have similar views, they don't have to worry that their vote is going to be split, and then both candidates will lose," Bowers explained. "And so, the net result of that is, the candidates who make it through tend to be favored or approved by more voters than the current system."

The grants are being made to groups to fund polling and legal services for potential campaigns. Voting reform groups were also chosen in the San Francisco Bay Area; Austin, Texas; Missouri and Utah.

Troy Davis, a volunteer for Seattle Approves, said the group will see if the City Council is willing to pass the reform. If not, they could gather signatures to put approval voting on the ballot next year.

Davis argued the change would make elections more democratic.

"It's the most effective, easiest to adopt, lowest-cost; really one of the only, few things we can do to make a huge impact for essentially no trade-offs," Davis contended. "If we were designing elections today, this would already be the case."

Debra Morrison, another volunteer for the group, said she doesn't like to choose favorites.

"For me as a voter, it's much easier for me to say, 'Well, I like these three people. I don't necessarily have a strong opinion about which one I like the best or the second-best,'" Morrison pointed out.

Seattle is ripe for election reform.

In 2015, it became the first city to create a "democracy voucher" program, which allots voters four $25 vouchers they can give to any eligible candidate in municipal elections.

The pandemic appears to have increased the level of violence in U.S. cities, and a new study found local officials and mayors, especially those of color, face the brunt of it.

Heidi Gerbracht, co-founder of the Women Mayors Network and founder of Equity Agenda, said death threats, vandalized homes and outrage at public meetings have all been reported by local government officials.

"They're having to change their lives to continue serving because of these threats," Gerbracht pointed out. "There is absolutely concern about escalation. There's concern about their physical safety and their family's physical safety."

Gerbracht noted the increasing violence, as documented in research by Oklahoma State University, requires a response from local governments, which may include protective services from local police departments. Online safety and physical training for mayors is being offered this month by the Mayors Innovation Project.

In interviews with more than 3,000 mayors last fall, 70% said they knew someone who chose not to run for office because of the hostile nature of the work.

Rebekah Herrick, professor of social sciences and humanities at Oklahoma State University, who cowrote the report, said social media is driving the increased violence.

"94.5% of mayors reported what we call psychological violence," Herrick reported. "Things like social-media attacks, verbal attacks at a public meeting; 24.2% reported receiving at least one threat."

Gerbracht added the exposure of an elected leader's personal information also is becoming more common, a level of harassment causing local leaders to decide against seeking public office.

"We just have this expectation as the public that this isn't a problem for local elected officials," Gerbracht emphasized. "There is a real need for people to understand that this is not just politics. This is not just what you should expect to get into public service."

Good-government groups are criticizing the Supreme Court's decision Monday eliminating rules on how much a candidate can spend to pay back loans he or she made to the campaign.

The justices sided with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who sued over rules, which said a candidate can only raise $250,000 after an election to pay back a personal loan.

Aaron Scherb, senior director of legislative affairs for Common Cause, said this means big donors can funnel huge amounts of cash directly to newly elected officials.

"This decision is yet another example of the Supreme Court allowing more big money in politics and further opening the door to corruption and big moneyed interests calling the shots," Scherb contended.

The decision undermines part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

In the supporting brief, Chief Justice John Roberts said the rule placed too great a burden on core political speech. In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued the decision, quote, "greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought it right to stop ... and can only bring this country's political system into further disrepute."

Scherb emphasized he hopes it will drum up more support for the DISCLOSE Act, which would require campaigns and groups spending money to influence politics to report more about their funding, but he is not optimistic.

"We're not holding our breaths that 10 Senate Republicans would vote for something like this," Scherb acknowledged. "But if more big money is going to be spent in politics, it absolutely has to be disclosed. The public deserves to see who's trying to influence their voices and their votes."

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging Nebraska's requirements for voter-led initiatives and referendums to qualify for a statewide ballot.

Currently, campaigns must collect signatures from at least 5% of voters in 38 of the state's 93 counties to qualify.

Daniel Gutman - a contract attorney for the ACLU of Nebraska - is leading the litigation. He said the requirement is unconstitutional because it dilutes the vote.

"Nebraska is a geographically diverse state," said Gutman. "And when you require 5% of the registered voters from 38 arbitrary counties, what you're doing is you're placing value and power on some people's vote over others."

Gutman noted that campaigns must collect 17,000 signatures in highly populated Douglas County, but the same campaign needs to collect just 17 signatures in Arthur County, with an estimated 337 registered voters.

Courts have struck down similar requirements in other states, who argued that geographical requirements were necessary to ensure that rural voters were not overpowered by urban populations.

Crista Eggers is a plaintiff in the case and leads a ballot campaign for Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana.

Her doctor told her that in order for her seven-year-old son to receive effective treatment for epilepsy, she would have to leave the state, or convince lawmakers to legalize medical cannabis. She said after an eight year struggle, she believes taking the issue to voters is the only way to change the law.

"But this is something that we're also fighting," said Eggers, "so that those who are fighting just as important issues in the future - that this is something that we take a look at - at whether this process is hindering and diluting the voice and the vote of Nebraska voters."

Gutman said there are other ways to ensure that rural and urban areas get an equal say on ballot measures. For example, other states require an equal number of qualified voter signatures from each of the state's equally populated federal Congressional districts.

"States do want input from people around the state in order to put an initiative or referendum on the ballot," said Gutman. "And that's not what we're challenging, actually; we don't necessarily disagree with that."