Vermont Progressives’ New Chair: No More “Democrat/Progressive” Ballot Lines
The election of Bill Hunsinger marks an attempted pivot from both a Burlington-centric organization to a statewide populist coalition and the strategy where Progressives cross-file as Democrats.
In a definitive shift that could reshape Vermont’s electoral landscape ahead of the 2026 midterms, the Vermont Progressive Party (VPP) has elected a new leadership slate rooted in rural advocacy and signaled a strategic departure from its longtime cooperation with the Democratic Party.
The election of Bill Hunsinger, a selectboard member from Ripton, as State Chair in November 2025 represents more than a personnel change; it marks an attempted pivot from a Burlington-centric organization to a statewide populist coalition. This “New Era,” as party leadership describes it, appears focused on capitalizing on rural dissatisfaction with school consolidation (Act 73) and ending the practice of “fusion” candidacy—the strategy where Progressives cross-file as Democrats.
The End of the “Burlington Party” Image?
For decades, the VPP has been operationally anchored in Burlington, the birthplace of the movement under Bernie Sanders. However, the November 2025 reorganization explicitly empowers leaders from outside the Chittenden County core.
Hunsinger, whose background involves municipal governance (roads, budgets, and ordinances) in Addison County, is joined by Vice Chair Cindy Weed, a former State Representative from Enosburgh in Franklin County.
According to internal party analysis, this leadership ticket is designed to shed the perception of the VPP as a party of urban intellectuals. By elevating a rural selectboard member and a representative from the Northeast Kingdom, the party is positioning itself to compete in regions where working-class voters have increasingly drifted toward the Republican Party.
The Break with “Fusion” Politics
Perhaps the most significant development for Vermont voters is the party’s evolving stance on “Fusion” politics. Historically, Progressive candidates often sought the Democratic nomination as well, appearing on the ballot as “Democrat/Progressive” to avoid splitting the left-leaning vote and handing victories to Republicans.
This “gentlemen’s agreement” appears to be fracturing.
In April 2025, a coalition of high-profile Progressives, including Chair Hunsinger, signed an open letter titled “Break the Two-Party Trap.” The letter argued that the Democratic Party has failed to deliver on key issues such as universal healthcare and housing, and urged candidates to run exclusively as Progressives in the 2026 cycle.
If implemented, this strategy would place Progressive candidates in direct competition with Democrats in general elections, potentially altering the balance of power in Montpelier during the second half of the decade.
A New Wedge Issue: The Fight Over Act 73
While the party is distancing itself from Democrats electorally, it is also distinguishing itself on policy by aggressively opposing Act 73, the state’s controversial education reform and consolidation law.
Passed in July 2025, Act 73 mandates the consolidation of school districts and creates a uniform statewide education property tax rate. The law has faced stiff resistance in rural towns, where residents fear the loss of local school boards and village schools.
The VPP has adopted a “local control” platform, aligning themselves with rural communities against what they term “Montpelier bureaucrats.”
The Argument: Party leadership argues that consolidation is an austerity measure that harms vulnerable students and strips communities of democratic autonomy.
The Strategy: By leading the “No” campaign on Act 73, the VPP hopes to build a “horseshoe” coalition—uniting left-wing Progressives and rural conservatives who both oppose state-mandated school mergers.
Organizational and Ideological Shifts
The transition comes at a moment of operational fragility. The party is navigating the recent departure of long-time Executive Director Joshua Wronski, who is credited with professionalizing the party’s infrastructure over the last decade.
Simultaneously, the party has adopted a more rigid foreign policy platform. Recent resolutions passed by the State Committee explicitly condemn actions by the Israeli state in Gaza, using language such as “apartheid” and calling for the expulsion of settlers in the West Bank. This platform demands that Vermont’s congressional delegation adopt a stricter stance against U.S. military funding for Israel, further widening the ideological gap between the VPP and mainstream Democrats.
What Happens Next
As the VPP moves toward the 2026 election cycle, several key tests await:
The Spoiler Test: If the party follows through on ending “fusion” candidacies, 2026 will test whether three-way races (Democrat vs. Republican vs. Progressive) result in Progressive victories or inadvertently aid Republican challengers.
The Legislative Session: Hunsinger and the rural leadership must coordinate with the Progressive Legislative Caucus, which remains dominated by Burlington-area representatives like House Leader Kate Logan. The party must bridge the gap between its rural officers and its urban legislators to effectively fight Act 73.
Major Party Status: To maintain its legal status as a “Major Party” (and access state-funded primaries), the new leadership must successfully organize town caucuses across the state—a logistical challenge that will test Hunsinger’s organizational reach.