Montpelier — Legislative counsel briefed the Vermont Senate Education Committee on March 20 about the legal standards and practical steps the Legislature should consider when creating or redrawing school-district boundaries and internal wards.

The briefing focused on the constitutional requirement commonly called “one person, one vote,” the legal factors courts look at when reviewing maps, and operational issues counties and town clerks face if municipalities are split by new district or ward lines. Tim Devlin, legislative counsel, told the committee that redistricting planning typically uses total population from the decennial census as the baseline and that courts will require districts to be “reasonably similar numbers in population.”

Devlin said the U.S. Supreme Court decision Reynolds v. Sims established the one-person/one-vote standard and that state court precedent treats education as a governmental function that triggers the need for proportional representation on governance bodies. He told members there are permissible variations in populations among districts, but deviations should be accompanied by a legitimate state interest; he cited a general practical tolerance of roughly a 10% maximum deviation for state and local districts, with stricter standards for federal congressional districts.

The counsel walked through recurrent redistricting factors courts and practitioners consider: compactness, contiguity, respect for existing political subdivisions (municipal boundaries), geographic features (lakes, mountains, islands), and communities of common interest such as shared schools, roads or civic infrastructure. He noted the distinction between different electoral constructions — at-large seats, single-member wards, and multi-member wards — and said combinations (for example, five ward seats plus two at-large seats for one district) are legally permissible if population requirements are met.

Devlin and Tucker Anderson, also a legislative counsel, outlined a multi-step timeline tied to the decennial census: legislative or advisory boards typically begin work in July after census data is available, a draft plan can appear by mid-August for review by local boards of civil authority, and a final plan is transmitted to House and Senate clerks in the early fall. Devlin also pointed committee members to a National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) report used in the 2022 redistricting cycle as a resource on mapping and process.

Committee members pressed on operational consequences. Counsel emphasized practical consequences if municipalities are split: potential voter confusion at single polling places, checklist errors for clerks, the complexity of mailing ballots to differing wards, and overlapping election administration when local, regional and federal contests coincide on the same day. Devlin urged the group to consider which election cycle school-board contests should follow — options discussed included municipal annual meetings (Town Meeting Day), primary dates, and the general election — and noted some charter municipalities already use different annual-meeting dates under 17 V.S.A. § 2640.

On partisan or political gerrymandering, counsel referenced recent case law distinguishing federal and state treatment: the U.S. Supreme Court’s Rucho v. Common Cause limits federal-court intervention on partisan gerrymanders, while states retain their own standards. He also said litigation can force map changes and that an adopted plan need not be the “best” possible map so long as it meets legal and statutory criteria.

Members discussed whether school-ward populations should be measured by total population, voter-eligible population or student enrollment. Counsel recommended using total population from the census as the standard for apportionment while recognizing that student and resident populations matter for operational planning and representation discussions.

The committee did not take formal action at the hearing; members asked counsel to return with further specifics and staff support options to carry mapping work into the summer and fall once census-based district lines are proposed.

Looking ahead, counsel warned the committee that redistricting work is data- and resource-intensive, typically requiring mapping experts and detailed demographic analysis, and that timing decisions (when to redraw wards relative to state legislative reapportionment) and election-date choices will materially affect clerks’ workloads and voter experience.