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!
Extra carrots for Fake Jimmy! Huzzah!BTW Zuckerman, my memory of that incident doesn’t reflect anger, depression, a particularly long memory or the holding of any grudge. It reflects an association with the combination of your name and Pearson’s that I’m sure has stuck with a lot of people – at least a couple of others on this thread. I don’t know Adrian, don’t need to buy vegetables from you, and am otherwise unaffected by the anecdote; I just think it’s funny.
Thank goodness Zuckerman is out good riddance to the petty thief. What a flagrant idiot to flaunt the fact that he was padding his salary during economic hard times and layofs of hardworking Vermonters working for the state.Anyone driving by Zuckerman’s farm it is open poaching season, I encourage all unemployed state workers to help themselves, His new Political slogan..Stealing it is the Zuckerman endorsed way to feed your family.
I wonder: if Chris were an oil lobbyist running for the seat, would Haik lay into him as much as he is with Chris’ current career? And what exactly does a Haik endorsement mean? So far, all it appears to mean is “I’ll-stop-with-the-impertinent-questions-if-you-score-me-some-ritilin.”To argue that Vermont will be weaker on the national scene without the electoral college is weak. It further implies that the people of Burlington actually care about this issue. Any bets on how big this issue will rate in any Burlington district? Probably somewhere down the list near mosquitos.
Excuse me. I meant to say “…is a larger number than 600,000/300,000,000…”
It was more than petty politics…But petty politics was a part of it? Just kidding.Any state can be a swing state, and campaign resources will always be finite. The fact remains 3/538 (.005) is a larger number than 600,000/3,000,000 (.002). Vermont has more influence under the current system than it would under a national popular vote.That’s as it should be. Vermont is a state like the other 49. We don’t have a national government. We have a federal government. We don’t have a national presidential election. We have fifty state elections, and one in DC. We don’t have a mechanism for a single national election, and I hope we never do. That’s like one large field of homogeneous crops. Danger. I’d prefer my corruption and shenanigans one state at a time, thank you. Better to have fifty different strains of seed going, lest one or two succumb to parasites.The system works well. There was a hiccup in 2000 that caused a lot of resentment and sour grapes, but it strains credulity to argue the electoral college alone should be blamed for that. You could blame Clarence Thomas, or Ralph Nader, or Monica Lewinsky. You could blame an uninformed electorate, the media, or the butterfly ballot. You could blame Joe Lieberman or the fact Gore used “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet” by BTO instead of “keep on rolling” by REO Speedwagon like he should have.But some people want to use 2000 as justification for attacking the electoral college. If 2000 had not happened, it seems unlikely Christopher Pearson would be a lobbyist right now, working to cut the heart out a the system that has held our nation together for two hundred years.Chris Pearson might think he knows better than Thomas Paine, John Adams and James Madison, but I seriously doubt he does.Just out of curiousity, is this a full-time, 40 hour per week lobbying job Chris Pearson works at right now? Does he work in Burlington? These are fair questions to ask of a candidate for the legislature, aren’t they? Voters have a right to know a little about their candidates and the voters of Chittenden 3-4 may be curious. I am a little.
Murphy-I am not sure who else you are referring to. Ed (and his family sadly) was the only one. If you want to smear me and imply there were more, fine. But that’s all it is. The reasoning has been hashed out before. It was more than petty politics…but I am sure if I explain it again, it will just lead to a long back and forth. But please, do not smear me with false accusations. We can disagree on any number of things, but attacking me personally or my business is uncalled for.Now, on to a real topic for debate; National Popular Vote and the electoral college. I am well aware that Obama came to UVM. But that was for the purpose of winning the primary. As far as I know, NPV would not change that process. But as far as general elections go, we only matter when we are in play (and that is rare). That does not reinforce your argument, it points out that our three electoral votes are not a big deal…and therefore get little attention in most general elections because we are not a swing state. If a candidate wins a state by 5% or 20% it is worth the same (in the electoral college). If that state is within 1-5 points…then it can be won and the campaigns invest. But any margin matters under NPV, and if one can get a higher turnout or a higher percentage in a like minded state…then it is worth investing there to increase ones votes. So with NPV it becomes worthwhile to campaign anywhere that the voting population is not set in stone.
I apologize. Soon, i’ll use my real name, you know, like someone who’s not a sociopath.
David, don’t you remember? Obama came twice in the election. Obama came for a fundraiser, but before that he visited Ira Allen Chapel at UVM.Your noting that Vermont was a swing state in 1992 only makes my point.And I heard the same thing about the CSA, by the way. From what I heard it sounded like a petty move. Hopefully that wasn’t the case and there are some facts I’m missing, but it sounded like political retribution. If that’s wrong David, please explain.It’s dead wrong to say the electoral college reduces Vermont’s influence in presidential elections. You have to be really bad at math to argue that.And yes, Vermont’s disproportionately high repesentation in the senate helps us out. It helps us in the same way our disproportionatly high repesentation in the electoral college helps us in presidential elections.For those who don’t know. The numbers of electors from each state is based on the number senators and repesentatives it has.Christopher Peason did not address my question, Matthew. I would have prefered an answer from the lobbyist himself.And Matthew, if I lived in Peason’s district, he would have a lot of work to do to win my vote, but since I don’t, it’s only my endorsement that’s in play. What’s the value of my endorsement? Well that’s hard to quantify, but I wouldn’t assume it’s meaningless.In fact, I think I might devote some extra attention to the Pearson race on my blog now. And that attention may not be favorable to Mr. Peason. It would be foolish to assume that’s nothing to worry about.So find all the humor you want in my endorsement choices. We will see what happens.And Peason. You would present as a stonger candidate if you answered questions personally, rather than letting surrogates like Mr. Lyons fight your battles for you.
@ Zuckerman: To 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.”It ain’t garbage. Adrian wasn’t the only one kicked out of your CSA for expressing opinions you didn’t like.
And to Dale and Adam-Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it. I have always tried (and sometimes failed) to present my views and listen to others. One of the aspects of serving that has been best is the range of views held and the articulate voices that often present those views.We each live in our sphere of friends and our own perspective. It is great that in Vermont we mix more than in many other places. From that, even better results often come to bear. Sadly, when it is about personal gain or personal promotion, it takes down everyone. I hope politics in Vermont and Burlington does not go down that negative path. And I am sorry for the moments when I have have moved away from issues and have gotten mired in the muck as well.