Rescission: a quirk of Vermont election law

It’s May and marked on my calendar are: Green Up Day, Mother’s Day and Election Day. Yes, we just voted for everything on Town Meeting Day in March but this is Waterbury, where just about every big project worth doing gets decided and re-decided, sometimes more than once.

The question on the ballot May 13 is whether voters would like to reverse the resounding approval they gave at Town Meeting to a $2.95 million bond for the $5 million proposed project to give us a town hall once again, update and expand the library, and provide a modest museum-like home for our local historical treasures.

The bond passed by nearly 200 votes (809-617) but enough people displeased with “yes” for an answer are asking if we would collectively change our minds. It’s called “rescission.” It’s difficult to spell, difficult to express on a ballot, and difficult to motivate people to vote once again on something they thought was settled. It comes from the word “rescind,” meaning to revoke, repeal or invalidate. Caution: The tricky part is that the ballot question must ask if voters support or oppose rescinding the article that initially won. So a “support” vote would actually oppose the bond and an “oppose” vote actually favors the bond. Got it?

Waterbury voters are no strangers to rescission votes. In the past 15 years, they have popped up after passing a bond to rebuild the fire stations, after another bond to renovate the primary school, and also after town and village voters approved merging local governments. The building projects couldn’t be ignored and voters rejected those rescission attempts. Merger didn’t fare as well. That bruising topic was was moved to the back burner for a multitude of reasons, rescission being just one.

It’s hard to get statistics on whether other communities in Vermont are as experienced at rescission votes as Waterbury. The Secretary of State’s Office does not keep records of such votes. Municipalities are not even required to report having such elections, explained Will Senning, who heads the office’s elections division.

“It sporadically happens across the state,” he said. “And it seems more common in the past couple of years.”

Indeed, searches online of Vermont news turn up a smattering of such votes on public buildings and school bonds. It’s difficult to find multiple examples in the same community, however, except for Waterbury.

The popularity of rescission as a way to enact public policy here is worth a closer look. First, it’s important to know that rescission is a quirky part of Vermont municipal elections law originally designed as a check on business decided at traditional in-person town meetings, where perhaps only a small slice of the electorate makes a decision. Imagine a vote taken towards the end of Town Meeting after many people have already left thinking it was “safe” to go home because nothing controversial remained to be done. But something pops up and sneaks by. When the dust settles, the rescission law allows those left scratching their heads to ask to erase that action, possibly for good reason.

In 1992, rescission was broadened to apply to decisions made by all-day paper balloting (the exact term is “Australian Ballot”). So now, any vote at Town Meeting or in an election — regardless of how it is done — is fair game for a rescission request. Senning noted that rescission does not apply to elections of people to offices, a step that would equate to a recall option for which Vermont law does not allow.

So even when a question wins by a healthy margin — such as 192 votes in March — a rescission request needs just 5 percent of the registered voters to petition for another vote. Granted, the law requires that in order to “win,” support for rescission needs more than a simple majority. Votes for rescission must exceed two-thirds the number the proposal won by initially. In this case, rescinding the Municipal Complex bond will need 540 people on its side.

Still, there’s something frustrating about a relatively small group essentially overturning a measure that clearly prevailed in a fair election. The rescission option after something passes also gives those opposed to a project the option of sitting out on the hard work of creating a proposal. Instead of working alongside others and raising questions while an idea takes shape with the goal of making it better, opponents can tune in towards the end and simply demand that something be rejected. No alternative necessary.

“That surely wasn’t the way it was intended,” Senning said.

State Rep. Tom Stevens, D-Waterbury, calls rescission “undemocratic” and would like to see the law changed to eliminate the rescission option for matters voted on by Australian ballot. It could be a heavy lift, though, to get the Legislature’s attention on a seemingly arcane matter that barely raises an eyebrow in most of the state.

For now, though, those who want to block the project cite cost and environmental concerns typical of any construction or renovation at a 200-year-old home site as reasons to stop it in its tracks.

Consider for a moment that this bond is less than $3 million to be paid over 20 or 30 years. The project also has a $1 million grant that cannot sit unused much longer. Losing that would increase the local share in the future. Compare that for a moment with the school budgets that thankfully passed on Town Meeting Day: Spending for our pre-K through 12 schools totaled $24 million. And that’s for just one year.

Government spending, a.k.a. tax dollars, is the driving force behind reconstructing the State Office Complex downtown. Price tag? About $125 million, give or take, with about $70 million from Vermont taxpayers and another $35 million from federal funds.

Finally, the Vermont Agency of Transportation recently detailed more than $47 million-worth of improvements to roads, bridges, sidewalks and even the Interstate in and around Waterbury. Practically every penny will come from taxpayers far and wide, not just us.

Clearly, the state and federal governments see Waterbury as a good investment. If Waterbury fails to commit the dollars for its own town hall and library, what message does that send?

Lisa Scagliotti is a freelance writer and editor, and community organizer in Waterbury. She can be reached at lscagliotti@comcast.net.