I think your poll is fatally flawed because it doesn't distinguish between what one thinks of re-baptizers, and baptizers doing so because the first one wasn't considered valid.

Re-baptizing implies a recognition of the first, but a need or doctrine that dictates a Baptism must be done again, even though the first one holds some measure of validity.

The other type aren't re-baptizers at all, but only baptizers who do so visibly again for the express purpose that the first baptism was no baptism at all, ergo no baptism has ever occured.

Re-baptizers, in my book, are heretics. Baptizers doing so because the first batpsm was no baptism are not.

I think those affirming the heresey of the latter is one you would take issue to, and to that one you have my answer.

As the poll asks, whether re-baptizers are heretics are not, I answer yes.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo, Deacon, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"All of us stumble in many ways, but if anyone is never at fault in what he says, then he is mature, able to control his whole body."(James 3:2)