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!
“real Jimmy”Thanks for the note. Why such anger? Any chance you want to reveal who you are (last name etc.) as opposed to just flinging garbage without people being able to know who you are? Probably not.questions are certainly reasonable. I believe Haik raised a point and Chris answered it. We actually have more power that our size as a state because we have two Senators, not because we have three electoral college votes. While that was originally set up to give states somewhat more equal power in the election of our President, the facts from many recent elections is that the power resides in “swing” states (regardless of size). Those that are either deep blue or deep red are more or less ignored by the major party candidates from either party because they know they either have it in the bag or can not win those states.As for Obama visiting Vermont…he dipped his toe into the state once (once the campaign was truly going) and that was for a big fundraiser in Windsor County. Not really a major campaign rally etc. The last real candidate to do more than a pass by was Clinton in 1992 and that was because VT had come into play at that time (believe it or not!)And Jimmy…you sure do hold a memory and a grudge. It must really get you down. What do you do for fun?
There goes Fake Jimmy again, sucking up so he won’t get kicked out of Zuckerman’s CSA like Ed Adrian did. Haik, how dare you ask questions – no vegetables for you!
rock on pearson. you have my vote.
I don’t think you could be any more wrong Haik. By moving to popular vote, VT will become more important not less. As will all of the less populated states. Opposed to it being about 3 electoral college votes its about X hundreds of thousands of votes to their overall total. The three now can be taken completely for granted in VT and in many other states.Candidates already spend a disproportionate amount of time in NYC and LA now. That is not going to change because of the high value of a large concentrated population and therefor a high number of voters. But when a candidate is counting true votes not some manufactured number they will have more motivation to spend time in more regions. As it stands now don’t you think pres candidates spend less time in up state NY then NYC? Of course they do. But why? by your theory they should spend essentially equal time all over NY.Additionally, manufacturing some false problem between our representational form of gov’t and how we elect our president is a ridiculous argument. The electoral college reduces the effectiveness of our voting system by artificially altering the one person one vote system. This has nothing to do with our representational democracy as it has nothing to do with electing any member of congress. The congress and the Senate are not elected through a statewide electoral college system, they are elected by one person one vote. The electoral college creates an unnecessary redundancy in an attempt to create the equality that our form of gov’t already attains. In fact one could argue that our current Presidential electoral system decreases the true intent of equal representation for our nation’s people. PS – it is also somewhat humorous to read you state Chris will need to do a lot of work to get your “endorsement” opposed to simply your “vote”. It betrays your belief that you think you are much more important then you really are.
Thanks, David Z., for your years of service. See ya at the farmer’s market.
Pollina who?
I always thought Zuckerman should have run for governor. I’m certain he would have been a much stronger candidate than Pollina.
“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?”””Serve your community?” Oh gimme a freakin break and leave off with the false noble sentiments already. You want the public salary and you want the power and recognition.Despite your party’s efforts to run business out of the state, IBM is hiring, at least temporarily. Give the private sector a try.
Back to lawmaker Dave Z. His record of accomplishment in the state capitol is pretty impressive and worth noting as he shifts gears. I’ve worked in the statehouse throughout his entire career there. The guy has produced a lot of reforms that make a real difference for vulnerable elders, working people, the environment, farmers, and more. He’s also led the way on tough issues that many elected officials would rather hide from, such as common sense drug policy reform.
Our bi-cameral legislature and the electoral college were born of the same set of compromises when the constitution was written.Speaking strictly about proportional representaion from each state, the existance of the senate should be every bit of an anathema to the popular vote crowd as the electoral college.If your goal is to amend the constitution to make presidential elections more fair, then how do you reconcile the existence of the senate?If you’ve been a lobbyist for the abolition of the electoral college for some time, then surely you’ve pondered this question before. What say you?