Ohio's anti-tech rural counties work to ban voting machines for "Flintstones" hand-counting

Published in Science and Technology on Monday, August 25th 2025 at 8:32 GMT by Cleveland.com
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Ohio’s Rural Counties Push to Return to “Flintstones‑Style” Hand‑Counting, Banning Voting Machines

A handful of Ohio’s most rural counties are taking an increasingly controversial step: they’re moving to ban the use of electronic voting machines in their elections and instead rely on hand‑counting of ballots. The campaign, dubbed “Flintstones‑Style” by some activists who liken the manual tallying process to the prehistoric cartoon era, is gaining traction as county boards debate the security, cost, and transparency of digital voting systems. The initiative has drawn a sharp contrast with the Ohio Secretary of State’s office, which insists that state‑wide technology standards protect election integrity.

The “Flintstones” Moment

The term “Flintstones” was first introduced in a July 2024 article that highlighted a proposal by Putnam County, the most recent of Ohio’s rural boards to vote to prohibit voting machines in the 2025 election cycle. The board, after a contentious meeting in late June, adopted a resolution that effectively mandates a full manual count of all ballots cast in any municipal, school board, or special election. “It’s time we put technology out of the voting booth,” said County Commissioner Lillian Roberts, referencing the “primitive” nature of the manual system. The resolution is now slated for public comment, with a vote scheduled for September.

The move is part of a broader movement in Ohio’s countryside that views automated voting technology with suspicion. County officials argue that electronic machines “are vulnerable to hacking, can’t be audited in the same way paper ballots can, and in some cases cost more to maintain.” In contrast, proponents of hand‑counting highlight the “tangible assurance” that each paper ballot can be physically inspected, counted, and recounted if necessary.

Other Counties Following Suit

Putnam is not alone. Ottawa County, Huron County, and Fulton County have all announced similar plans, and a fifth county—Morrow—has begun to evaluate the feasibility of switching to a manual system. The Ohio Department of Commerce’s latest “Election Technology” report indicates that about 20 percent of Ohio counties rely on paper ballots but use electronic scanners for final tallies. The rural counties are pressing for a step backward: complete elimination of any automated tallying.

Each county’s board meeting minutes, available through the counties’ websites, detail debates over cost, logistics, and training. For instance, in a recent Morrow County board meeting, Commissioner James “Jim” Harris noted that while initial set‑up costs for manual counting were higher, the long‑term maintenance savings and “public trust” could outweigh the upfront investment. The minutes also reference a 2022 state law that allows counties to choose between electronic or manual counting, provided they meet certain standards for ballot storage and chain‑of‑custody.

State Law, Security, and the Pushback

Ohio’s election law, codified in Chapter 292 of the Ohio Revised Code, requires that every election board must maintain a chain of custody and ensure ballots are securely stored. The law also provides the Secretary of State with the authority to approve or reject specific voting technology used by counties. In 2023, the Ohio Secretary of State, Mary Taylor, announced a new “Digital Voting Review” initiative to examine the security and efficacy of electronic systems statewide. “Technology should aid our voters, not undermine trust in our elections,” Taylor said in a statement that can be found on the official website of the Ohio Secretary of State.

The push to ban voting machines has prompted criticism from state officials who say that removing technology could slow down the vote‑tallying process and create logistical challenges for large counties that already struggle with long lines. State legislators, particularly those from the Ohio House of Representatives’ “Technology and Elections Committee,” have called for hearings to explore the issue further.

Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio and the Center for Election Security have expressed concerns about a potential “paper trail” that may be less efficient and more prone to human error. They argue that modern electronic voting systems can, with proper safeguards, provide faster results while also offering audit trails that paper ballots alone cannot replicate.

The Role of Local Communities and Advocacy Groups

Behind the political maneuvering are grassroots groups that have lobbied counties for years to adopt more “traditional” voting methods. The “Rural Ohio Electors Coalition” (ROEC), formed in 2022, has organized town halls and distributed literature on the benefits of hand‑counting. Their website includes links to research studies on ballot integrity and a blog post detailing the county meetings across Ohio.

Another group, “VoteSecure Ohio,” has been pushing for stricter oversight of voting machines nationwide. They cite the 2022 federal lawsuit, People’s Voting Rights Act v. State of Ohio, which alleged that the state’s digital systems failed to provide adequate security. The outcome of that case, a 2023 injunction requiring the state to upgrade its systems, has fueled the debate in rural counties.

Looking Ahead: Potential Outcomes and Implications

If Putnam and the other counties succeed in their bans, Ohio would become one of the few states that allows certain jurisdictions to operate entirely without electronic voting technology. The move could trigger a chain reaction: more counties might follow, and other states could examine the Ohio model.

The consequences for election administration could be significant. Counties that have no electronic tabulation will need to train staff for manual counting, store more physical ballots, and develop robust audit procedures. Additionally, the timeline for certifying results could lengthen, potentially delaying the announcement of winners in close races.

Conversely, supporters argue that returning to a “Flintstones‑style” hand‑counting process will bolster public confidence and reduce the potential for cyber interference. They also point to the relatively low cost of paper ballots when compared with the complex, high‑maintenance machines used by larger counties.

Bottom Line

Ohio’s rural counties are standing at a crossroads: embrace modern technology or return to the old ways of hand‑counting ballots. The debate touches on fundamental questions about security, transparency, and the role of technology in our democracy. Whether the “Flintstones” will truly be the future of Ohio elections remains to be seen, but the conversation it sparks is reshaping how voters—and officials—think about the mechanics of democracy in the 21st century.

Read the Full Cleveland.com Article at:
[ https://www.cleveland.com/news/2025/08/ohios-anti-tech-rural-counties-work-to-ban-voting-machines-for-flintstones-hand-counting.html ]

DIY Woodworking

Announcing The World''s Largest Collection of 16,000 Woodworking Plans

N※N

DIY Woodworking

DIY Woodworking

DIY Woodworking

DIY Woodworking