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.

Shay Totten wrote "Fair Game," a weekly political column, from April 2008-December 2011.

57 replies on “Zuckerman Won’t Seek Reelection to House”

  1. “Jimmy (since I got the topic wrong with you before)) who else was kicked out and why?”I thought I told you to take a breath and concentrate. I never said anyone other than Adrian got kicked out of your CSA.Between the thin skin and reading comprehension issues, it’s probably for the best that you’re retiring from politics. Good luck with the farming.

  2. fair enough Sean-But then again…the folks that have brought up my business (with false accusations) and the mileage (with a false understanding of the rules of our compensation) have not chimed in to dispute or answer the questions I have asked.For instance (@ Murphy and Jimmy (since I got the topic wrong with you before)) who else was kicked out and why? There is no one that I can remember…so why make things up?And mileage, food, lodging, all screwed up systems…but it is the system none-the-less. So Phrog (or whoever you are), what say you to the questions I mistakenly posted to Jimmy before? How should legislators be compensated?Happy to go have a drink, when people that throw stones are willing to back it up with facts, or admit they are making @*&@ up.

  4. Sorry Jimmy-I did write back to the wrong person, I did not go back and specifically read who was chiding me for farming and business versus the compensation issue. My bad.

  5. “Then I am not sure what all the fuss is about.”Take a breath and try to concentrate. I didn’t bring up your mileage issue. I have opinions about it, but I specifically said that I’m not interested in discussing it with someone who’s not directly in a position to do anything about it.Furthermore, that’s not what this blog post was about. Someone referenced it in a “good riddance” comment; that’s not an invitation to debate the issue at length, especially when no one’s debating back.

  6. Jimmy-Then I am not sure what all the fuss is about. You see…I was/am simply following the rules of compensation for legislators. So I (apparently mistakenly) understood that if people were upset with my compensation then they are also upset with the system (since…as was pointed out in the second, more thorough article…I am getting compensated exactly as the law prescribes.)I am not “doing it for the pay” as you mention. I have been engaged in politics and elected office because I have felt that I could work to improve the daily and legal situation for folks through Vermont laws. Some would argue I have succeeded others that I have failed. That is up to the individual.However, I also think that serving should be accessible to anyone (who can run and win etc.) and should not be shut out due to economics. That is why I ask what people think reasonable compensation should be? What is right as far as how much? I do not know…different folks have different opinions. I am surprised you don’t want to add yours since you tend to be more than ready to add your opinion on just about everything else.

  7. “And, yes, I naively did not consider any discrimination or other illegal activity a “business decision.” I consider that criminal, but, again, my bad. I’ll certainly watch my words more carefully when (if) I chime in on blogs in the future. Didn’t mean to upset anyone…”No prob.

  8. Yeah, that was a typo. Sorry. It should’ve said that NPV pledges a state’s votes to the *national* popular vote winner. My bad. My point was simply that NPV is totally within the structure of the U.S. Constitution, because the Constitution leaves it up to the state. Interestingly, 21 states, representing 257 electoral votes, currently don’t require their electors to pledge their votes for the winner of that state’s popular vote. And, as David Z. pointed out, Maine (along with Nebraska) has the district system, where the state’s EC votes are split according to how its congressional districts vote, as opposed to the winner-take-all system. The district system was a lot more widely used 150 years ago, but it also led to a popular vote winner losing an election.There’s some good info on the EC at the national archives website. I’m pretty sure NPV has a website, which shouldn’t be hard to find as they’re lobbyists. :)I only chimed in on the EC issue because it has been an area of interest for me, not to carry water for anyone, and I’m not really advocating one side or the other.And, yes, I naively did not consider any discrimination or other illegal activity a “business decision.” I consider that criminal, but, again, my bad. I’ll certainly watch my words more carefully when (if) I chime in on blogs in the future. Didn’t mean to upset anyone…

  9. I think most people find the automated spam less annoying, Fake Jimmy.David, I wasn’t wondering, and I don’t remember anyone else saying they were. If legislators aren’t happy with the compensation scheme then they shouldn’t run. I’ve known a few people who have served in the House and Senate and compensation was not important to them, they just wanted to serve the people of the state.

Comments are closed.