Dear Editor,
The recent process to recommend candidates for the Chittenden-18 legislative vacancy, following the resignation of Rep. Bob Hooper, D-Burlington, is a troubling case study in how a lack of transparency and a skeleton committee structure can undermine the democratic values our local parties claim to uphold.
I submitted my candidacy for this vacancy in good faith. My record is clear: I have consistently participated in Democratic primaries, supported Democratic candidates at every level, and worked to expand the party’s reach by registering New Americans to vote as Democrats. My commitment to this party is not new; I was proud to support Hooper for this very seat at a time when the Democratic Mayor of Burlington was actively supporting Hooper’s Republican opponent.
When the Regional District Committee (RDC) asked if I would caucus with Democrats and run for a full term, I answered with a firm “yes.” Despite this, I was informed that I would not be advanced because of what the RDC characterized as a “feeling” that I am an Independent rather than a Democrat. While I have run as an independent locally to prioritize city progress over partisan friction, my participation in the Democratic process is well-documented.
This raises a fundamental question: In a state without formal party registration, who determines who is a “real” Democrat, and by what objective standard? If party identity is now based on the subjective feelings of a few, even as those same individuals overlook party leaders who back Republicans, then the local party has abandoned its big tent philosophy in favor of an insular club.
However, the question of my personal affiliation is secondary to the alarming structural failures of the process itself.
The RDC admitted its voting power was limited to only five active members, one of whom subsequently withdrew from the decision-making process to be considered as a candidate for the Governor’s recommendation. While claiming to follow what they termed a “statutorily mandated” process, the committee simultaneously admitted to forgoing standard parliamentary rules, such as the requirement for a second on nominations. One cannot claim the shield of strict statutory adherence while picking and choosing which procedural rules to discard.
The geographic and ethical optics are even more indefensible. Chittenden-18 is a diverse district spanning both Ward 4 and Ward 7. The importance of both wards is clear: at the most recent Town Meeting Day on March 3, 2026, Ward 4 had 1,686 ballots cast, while Ward 7 had 1,633. They are nearly equal partners in our democracy.
Yet the four members who ultimately made this decision reside exclusively in Ward 4. Within this microscopic group, two members share the same household. This means that 50% of the voting power for a state legislative recommendation was concentrated under a single roof.
By failing to ensure any representation from Ward 7, the RDC created a geographic monopoly that effectively silenced half of the district’s electorate. In our Neighborhood Planning Assemblies, we introduce ourselves by our wards because we know that where we live informs who we represent. This skeleton crew process suggests a preference for a controlled outcome over a robust, district-wide democratic exercise.
This is not a critique of the individuals advanced; it is a critique of a broken mechanism. When criteria are subjective, and voting power is consolidated under one roof in a single ward, public trust is the primary casualty.
I have submitted my candidacy directly to Gov. Phil Scott for consideration. I have also asked that he consider leaving the seat vacant until the election this November. In a district where the internal process has been this insular, the only way to restore legitimacy is to allow the voters of Chittenden-18 to determine their representation directly at the ballot box.
We must demand better. Public trust depends on fairness, accountability and genuine inclusion. These values must guide not just who is appointed, but how those decisions are made.
Ali Dieng,
Burlington, Vt.
