Workshops · Sample · Civic Engagement

Jury Duty for AI

One county handed its artificial-intelligence policy to twenty-nine ordinary residents, chosen the way juries are. Here is what they did with it — in five short videos, about fifteen minutes start to finish.

In Snohomish County, Washington — about 850,000 people, just north of Seattle — the government had a question it could not answer alone: how should we use artificial intelligence, if at all? Instead of hiring consultants or holding one more sparsely attended public hearing, the county tried something older and stranger. It drew names, the way courts draw jurors. Forty residents were invited; twenty-nine saw it through: a retired engineer, a middle-school teacher, a social worker, a police officer in training, a tech worker. Each was paid $500. Over three weekends in May and June they listened to experts, argued with each other, and wrote policy.

Picture the term: this is called a civic assembly. If the words are new to you, the picture is one you already have — jury duty, but for public policy instead of a verdict. No one runs for the seat. No one campaigns. Your name comes up, and for a little while, you govern.

By the end, the group had voted through thirty-five recommendations, each with at least 80 percent support — among them: a human being must always make the final decision; the county must tell you when you are talking to a machine; and an oversight board of experts, county workers, and residents should watch what comes next. On July 8 they handed their report to the County Council, which now decides what becomes law.

The journalists at Cascade PBS and KNKX did more than cover this story — their reporting on city officials quietly using ChatGPT, dug out of public records, is what prompted the county to convene the assembly in the first place. Reporter Nate Sanford followed the whole process. His five-part series is below, republished with Cascade PBS's permission, videos and all. It is the best picture we know of what it looks like when ordinary people are handed the deciding — not just asked their opinion, but given the pen.


Republished from Cascade PBS · The Newsfeed · by Nate Sanford · June 22–26, 2026
Viewing this as a downloaded file? The video players only start when this page is on a real website. All five videos play in the original article at cascadepbs.org — the full text is below either way.

Citizens work together to come up with their county’s AI policies

This week, we tell you about what issues they said were the most important during a “Civic Assembly” in Snohomish County, and about what happens next.

Cascade PBS reporting prompts “Civic Assembly” in Snohomish County

Video not starting? Watch this segment in the original article at cascadepbs.org.

Story published 06/22/2026

Artificial Intelligence is rapidly evolving, and many local governments are still struggling to catch up and figure out how — or if — they should be using it. In Snohomish County, local leaders decided to try an experiment.

They convened what’s known as a “civic assembly” of 29 randomly selected county residents to deliberate on AI and come up with policy recommendations.

The idea was prompted in part by a series of articles published by Cascade PBS and KNKX last summer. Using thousands of pages of chatlogs obtained through public records requests, we reported on how city officials in Everett had experimented with AI tools like ChatGPT for a variety of tasks.

That reporting raised questions about transparency. It also caught the eye of local leaders in Snohomish County.

“That reporting actually was the thing that kicked off this civic assembly on this particular issue,” said Jillian Youngblood, the director of Civic Genius, the group facilitating the civic assembly.

Civic Genius is a national nonprofit that’s worked on civic assemblies before in other areas. But this is the first one Youngblood is aware of about AI. The Snohomish County Council says they’ll take the recommendations produced by the group seriously and try to adopt them into law.

Over three weekends in May and June, the group of 29 citizens heard from experts, did research and debated the thorny ethical issues at the heart of AI.

“Humanity needs to be put before technology, and that’s just not happening,” said participant Jessica Rhodes.

“It’s these three weekends that are intense, but my hope was to give something great to the county council government,” said participant Theo Moriarty.

“To be part of something that is so new to Snohomish County, and be part of something kind of historic,” said participant Hillary Moralez.

Process “reminds people who aren’t politicians that their opinions matter”

Video not starting? Watch this segment in the original article at cascadepbs.org.

Story published 06/23/2026

A civic assembly is a bit like jury duty, but for public policy. They’re more common in Canada and parts of Europe, but still rare in the United States. The goal is to create policies that more directly represent what the community wants.

“I was really excited by the idea of a process that reminds people who aren't politicians that their opinions matter,” said Mackey Guenther, one of eight facilitators who helped guide conversations at the Snohomish County AI civic assembly.

Guenther used to work for the city of Edmonds collecting public feedback on housing policy. He says that type of traditional political participation tends to self-select for people who are already engaged with local government, and that some voices get left out.

“My understanding is that some of the people in this room had never really been involved in a public process before,” Guenther said.

The participants were selected to be demographically representative and were paid $500 each.

“Over the course of three weekends, people struggle through difficult conversations and run into disagreements, but also see a little bit of themselves in other people,” Guenther said.

Participants have their preconceived notions challenged

Video not starting? Watch this segment in the original article at cascadepbs.org.

Story published 06/24/2026

The group had people with all kinds of backgrounds, including a retired engineer, a police officer in training, a middle school teacher, a social worker and a tech worker.

AI is a polarizing topic. Some participants said they didn’t want the county to use it at all.

“I always joke that I’m a luddite, I have strong thoughts on how technology should be helping people and not taking away from labor or rights of people and their dignity,” said participant Hillary Moralez.

Some participants had a more optimistic view coming into the sessions.

“I come from a software engineering background, and I assumed my reason to be here was to help shape how to help make the county make the most out of AI,” said participant Dhruv Raithatha.

Over the course of the three weekends, the participants heard presentations from experts in law, technology and government. They worked together in small groups to draft a list of shared values and recommendations. The process shifted some participants’ perspectives.

“I initially went in hoping I could basically just stop everything, which I understand is completely not an option. But what it really did was, it helped me to better understand other people’s thoughts and uses and processes,” Moralez said.

“I think my thought process has grown, and to incorporate all the other social and equitable aspects that I didn’t come in originally thinking about,” Raithatha said.

Conversation focuses in on some of the most controversial questions

Video not starting? Watch this segment in the original article at cascadepbs.org.

Story published 06/25/2026

The participants looked at many angles of AI – from bias and accuracy to environmental impact of data centers.

Snohomish County already uses some AI tools. As the technology becomes more common and the county enters into more contracts, the participants agreed that more transparency and regular audits are needed.

They also decided that people should have a right to know if they’re talking to AI when they contact their county government.

“Nobody wants to sit there and try to explain what their problem is only to be told that they’re talking with AI,” said participant Jessica Rhodes.

One big question was whether the county should be allowed to replace existing employees with AI.

“There is some disagreement on that, there is a really big discussion. The reality is, we can’t feasibly justify making employers train every single employee that they have while also paying for this new artificial intelligence system,” Rhodes said.

AI is evolving quickly. So the participants said the county should create an AI advisory board to weigh in on future issues.

“To be comprised of a mix of technical experts, county members and also the citizens, so we want to have that kind of democratic way of doing things,” said participant Mhindra Lukka.

The assembly’s recommendations, and what happens next

Video not starting? Watch this segment in the original article at cascadepbs.org.

Story published 06/26/2026

In the last of six meetings, participants voted on recommendations they’d come up with together. Each needed an 80% majority to be passed on to the county council for consideration.

Of more than 50 recommendations, the group approved 35 with strong support.

Some examples: The group agreed the county should ensure humans are always the final decision makers, should disclose when AI is used to respond to emails and publicize an AI data safety plan.

They also recommended the county make it clear to residents any time they’re interacting with an AI communication system and give residents legal recourse if their data is leaked.

One of the biggest recommendations is the creation of a new AI “human oversight board” composed of technical experts, community members and county employees.

County Council member Jared Mead says he and his colleagues probably won’t be able to adopt all the recommendations, but he hopes to pass as many as possible.

“You put a policy out there, it’s bound to get churned and amended and moved and whatever, so I don’t know exactly what it’s going to look like at the end of this. But I would consider it a disappointment if we just look at these policy recommendations and file them away and say we’ll get to that eventually,” Mead said.

Mead says he knows some county staff have experimented with AI, but there’s a lot of information he still lacks.

“I don’t think most elected officials, including myself, have even close to an idea of the concept of how it’s being used in government. Which is why I think something like this is so important,” Mead said.

Most participants say they think the final set of recommendations represents a good middle ground between caution and optimism.

“I think what we’ve come to consensus on encompasses a lot of people’s worries and fears and pushes things more towards, honestly, a cutting edge policy that’s really going to help the government,” said participant Theo Moriarty.

Some participants voiced concerns that the county council may not take their recommendations seriously.

Some also wished they could have done more during the process. Jessica Rhodes says she felt like the structure of the civic assembly was too narrow. She wishes the group had been allowed to spend more time on issues like the environmental impact of AI.

“They have been very dismissive about our environmental concerns, and every time someone brings up a concern they’re like, ‘Well we’re talking about this subject so let's get back on point,’” Rhodes said.

The civic assembly organizers say they have to balance keeping conversations on track while also allowing participants to express themselves freely.

“We have what we call the remit, which is the specific question that we’re trying to answer. That is what we’re trying to give the county council guidance on, so we want to make sure we’re focused on that,” said Jillian Youngblood.

Youngblood says the final recommendations are a good representative look at how people are feeling about AI.

“I really think that what came out of the Snohomish County Civic Assembly can be a blueprint for other communities. And I heard from the very beginning and throughout the process that the conversations we were having at this assembly really reflected the national conversation on this issue,” Youngblood said.

“I think this is a model that we can hopefully be implementing on our county through the future,” Mead told the assembly participants during the last meeting.

The county council plans to consider the recommendations in the coming weeks.

This article by Nate Sanford was originally published by Cascade PBS and is republished here under its republishing guidelines. Videos are copyright Cascade Public Media, embedded as they appear in the original article.

Three things worth noticing

1. Nobody in that room was an expert — and it worked anyway.

The experts were called in to testify, like witnesses at a trial, and then the deciding was left to the teacher, the social worker, the engineer. One participant came in wanting to stop AI altogether; another came in wanting to speed it up. Three weekends later they had voted, 80 percent or better, on thirty-five things they agreed about. That is not a miracle. It is what juries do every week.

2. It started because someone read the receipts.

This assembly did not begin with a politician's idea. It began with reporters requesting thousands of pages of public records and finding that city officials were already using ChatGPT to write government documents — quietly, with no policy in place. The records were public. Anyone could have asked. Someone did, and a county changed how it governs.

3. Advice is not yet a decision.

The thirty-five recommendations are, for now, advice. The council says it will take them seriously, and one councilmember says he'd call it a disappointment if they were filed away. Watch what happens next, because it is the difference between being consulted and being counted — between a thing said to you and a thing you hold. The assembly's own biggest recommendation shows they understood this: a standing oversight board with residents on it, so the watching doesn't end when the weekend does.

Could your county do this?

Yes. Nothing about this required Washington State. It required a council willing to ask, a facilitator (here, the national nonprofit Civic Genius), about $500 per participant, and three weekends. If your local government is using AI — and it likely is — the questions the Snohomish assembly answered are sitting unanswered where you live:

The Snohomish final report is a public document, written to be borrowed. Its facilitators call it a blueprint. Blueprints are for building.

Fact basis. Assembly of 29 randomly selected Snohomish County residents (40 invited), demographically representative, paid $500 each; six meetings over three weekends, May–June 2026; facilitated by Civic Genius; 35 of 50+ recommendations passed at ≥80% support; final report presented to the Snohomish County Council July 8, 2026; council recognition July 13, 2026. Sources: Cascade PBS/KNKX five-part Newsfeed series by Nate Sanford (June 22–26, 2026, republished above); KNKX, July 7, 2026; Everett Herald, July 13, 2026. Prepared by The People's Share, July 27, 2026.