Burlington Progressive David Zuckerman has decided not to seek reelection to the Vermont House of Representatives this fall.
A former House member — Progressive Chris Pearson — has decided to run for the seat and will kick off his campaign Friday.
Zuckerman is part of a two-seat Burlington district covering the neighborhoods in and around the University of Vermont. The other seat is held by Rep. Kesha Ram (D-Burlington), who bested Pearson in 2008 in a spirited four-way race between two Democrats and two Progressives.
Zuckerman, an organic farmer who has purchased farmland in Hinesburg but still resides in Burlington, said the demands of expanding his organic farm clinched his decision.
“It’s the reality of life — the business is taking up a lot of time and energy right now, which is what happens when you take on a half-million dollars in debt,” said Zuckerman, who runs Full Moon Farm with his wife Rachel Nevitt. The pair also has a 4-year-old daughter, and Zuckerman said a desire to spend more time with her also played into his decision.
Zuckerman said he had given up the idea of running for the House months ago, and has considered a run for lieutenant governor and Chittenden County senate.
“I’ve served now for 14 years, and it’s time to take a break,” said Zuckerman. “I may re-engage in a few years, but for now I’m going to step back.”
Earlier this year, Zuckerman admitted to putting in for mileage allowances even though he carpooled to Montpelier. That drew a lot of ire from constituents, but the lead lawyer for the legislature said it’s perfectly legit.
Zuckerman secured the most votes in the 2008 election with 2316, while Ram had 2163. Pearson followed in third with 1494 votes, while Democrat Phillip Ortego had 781 votes.
“As many of you remember, I lost my election in 2008. It was a painful process. But 2010 brings a new opportunity, and my friend David Zuckerman’s retirement from the House creates a great chance for me to go back,” Pearson said in an email inviting supporters to attend his campaign launch Friday on the UVM campus.
He told Seven Days that he’s been thinking about a return to Montpelier for months, but began reaching out to supporters in earnest after the New Year.
“I really miss it, and I was able to accomplish quite a bit in my two years there, and it sort of was just getting started,” Pearson said. “I wanted to give it a lot of thought, and I would like to continue doing [that], and a voice like mine provides an awful lot in the process.”
In his first term, Pearson served as leader of the six-person Progressive Party caucus. During his single term, he called for funding schools by income taxes rather than property taxes. He also introduced legislation to create a “do not mail” registry akin to the state’s Do Not Call registry. The measure was designed to keep people from receiving unwanted junk mail.
Pearson said that in his day job, working for National Popular Vote, he has seen how one person can make a difference in a small legislature.
Besides Pearson, the Progressive Party is likely to run a second candidate in the race, said Morgan Daybell, the party’s executive director.
This article appears in Apr 21-27, 2010.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
How could Vermont possibly have any less influence?By getting rid of the electoral college. That’s how Chris.I believe every vote in the country should be equal.Vermont is disproportionately represented in the US senate, as well as in the electoral college. Do you believe a small state like ours should not have two senators? How do answer Chris?
Man if you can’t handle comments like “get a real job” then you are not cut out for politics.
Why is public service so vilified? When did it become automatic that wanting to serve my community means I have to be subject to rude comments like “get a real job?” Feel free to disagree with me, but a little respect would be appreciated.Haik and “Geta” seem to agree with Gov. Douglas who vetoed the popular vote legislation on the basis that VT does well under the electoral college. Personally I agree with the sentiment expressed on the House floor when we passed the bill overwhelmingly: “How could Vermont possibly have any less influence?”I believe every vote in the country should be equal. If every vote is in play then every vote will actually matter. Today candidates spend 2/3 of their money in 6 battleground states. New Hampshire got $14 million in spending in the fall of 2008 (not the primary) because it might have gone red or blue. Vermont got nothing. How is that good for us, exactly? What’s wrong with every vote being equal? The top 50 cities in this country only account for 19% of the population so there is no way LA or NY will control the outcome.But anyway, I hope to engage my neighbors in a rigorous debate this summer and fall and I hope to get back to Montpelier. It was a difficult but exciting job and I believe I can have a positive influence. We need to ask a new set of questions and look at our economy in a sustainable and localized way. If my neighbors agree I hope they’ll vote for me.
Agree with Haik on the Electoral College thing. Vermont has enormous clout because of the EC. No state with 600,000 people would count for squat if it weren’t for the EC. And does anyone really want the entire country to be ruled by exclusively whoever New York City and Los Angeles decide to pick for Prez? I don’t. You’re doing your own state of Vermont a great disservice, Pearson. Howabout you get a real job so you don’t have to hope to get elected to the Vt. Legislature to make a living? Or move to LA where your national popular vote thingy might be considered a good thing.
…Oh and thank you for your service David Zuckerman. All the best to you and your family and I wish your farm great success!
Lobbying against the electoral college is a poor idea, especially for Vermont. We were lucky enough to receive visits from candidate Bill Clinton and Candidate Barack Obama. They never would have come here if Vermont didn’t have three electoral votes. Much of the wind in the sails of the popular vote movement came from 2000, but how long can that wind support paying positions like the one held by Mr. Pearson?If I recall Pearson’s junk mail proposal was of questionable constitutionality, enforceability and essentially amounted to the creation of another bureaucracy, and a new tax on business to support it.And I seem to recall Pearson offering some poorly written blog comments on occasion.Chris Pearson would have have some work ahead of him if he ever wanted to win my endorsement, and I would not assume he’s a shoe-in in the election. Kesha Ram took him to school last go-round and I would not count the Dems out of fielding another winning candidate this time too.
I expect Chris Pearson will set the ethical standard for all legislative candidates and “Take the Pledge” not to accept any expense allowance unless the expense is actually justified.
While Rep. Zuckerman and I have differed in many blogs over these and various web pages, forums etc through the years, I commend him for his many years of service. I wish him well in his new business venture which is understandably a great challenge. I am sure with his commitment, in the future years more discussions,disagreements, and resolutions will be reached, as he participates in the process known as democracy.Good luck Dave we will get it on again in the future as we all work towards making this a better land
Zuckerman will be missed. Thanks, for serving, Dave.
Will the last Prog to leave the building please turn out the lights?