School boards and clerks clash over commingling ballots in multi‑town districts; committee hears arguments from both sides

The Senate Committee on Government Operations on Wednesday, May 7, 2025, heard extended testimony on whether ballots in union and unified school districts should be commingled — counted and reported as a single district result — or returned and reported separately by member towns.

The discussion matters because commingling affects how voters perceive school governance, can change the political dynamics around school budgets and places operational burdens on town clerks. Witnesses from the Vermont School Boards Association and district leaders urged preserving commingling to promote district unity; several town clerks and the clerk for Westbrook argued voters and clerks want the option to see municipal‑level results and to avoid the operational strain that commingling creates.

Sue Cyglowski, executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association, summarized the policy position: “Commingling of votes supports that perspective by avoid avoiding pitting 1 town in a union school district against other towns within the district. It reinforces that school board members are accountable to the entire district, not just to their individual towns.” Cyglowski and Flora Diaz Smith, the SBA president, said commingling helps boards focus on district‑wide policy rather than municipal rivalries.

Gloria Esmeade, who identified herself as chair of the Washington Central School District, told senators that in her experience commingling helped newly merged districts find common ground. She said commingling “encourages cooperation” and reduces “finger pointing” between towns after shared budgets are adopted.

Committee members also read written concerns from town clerks. The clerk from Westbrook wrote that voters there “want to not commingle anymore” and that since commingling began in February 2022 town clerks have received “an increased frequency of comments from upset voters that they can't see how their municipality voted.” The written submission asked whether current law allows towns to amend their articles of agreement and whether an option could be created to let towns choose whether to commingle.

Town clerks who submitted testimony told the committee that commingling often lengthens an already long election day because clerks must transport ballots and perform central tallying; one clerk said commuting distance to a central tabulation site makes the process more onerous and increases voter confusion at polling places.

Deputy Secretary of State Lauren Hibbert said the Secretary of State’s Office understands both positions. She described commingling as a policy decision tied to the fact that a union or unified district is a single school district: “It’s 1 whole school district. It's one thing, not the separate towns,” Hibbert said, and she cautioned that proposed wholesale changes should be considered in light of broader school‑redistricting work in H.454. The deputy secretary said logistical details — who votes where, what decision triggers a change — would have to be carefully drafted if the Legislature chooses to allow local opt‑outs.

Following testimony the committee indicated it had little appetite to make a near‑term statutory change; senators repeatedly noted that ongoing statewide school‑redistricting and education‑funding proposals in H.454 could require a more comprehensive review before altering election law for school districts.

Witnesses and committee staff agreed on one near‑term outcome: staff will collect written testimony and suggested statutory language to present options to the committee, and the Secretary of State’s Office will advise how any change would affect ballot timelines and clerk workloads.