If an edit is rejected as vandalism, I think it would be useful to have some sort of flag or notification raised if anyone voted to approve it.
I think an auto-flag for moderators is the right way to handle this (not an auto-ban). Since this question was asked SE has added several other auto-flags, so this would fit right in. We have auto-flags for many comments (in a short time), many answers, many edits to the same post, rollback wars, and some others. More recently we've gotten an auto-flag when a user has several validated rude/offensive or not-constructive comment flags. In all of these cases, sometimes the information is noise and sometimes it requires moderator attention -- to lock a post, contact a user about rudeness, protect a question, or... with this change, ban a user from reviews.
We'd need to tune this with data. I don't think we want to raise a flag if one user said vandalism and one approved on a single post. Maybe two vandalism votes should raise a flag on the approving user, or maybe it should take more than one incident -- this depends on how often this happens and how severe it is. If that edit actually gets through, I assume the community will see and flag it -- so we're concerned about approvals that were prevented from taking effect. That feels similar to validated rude/offensive flags to me, where we raise a flag if it happens a few times, but comments are more frequent than errant edit reviews.