SOS LaRose thwarts effort to bar use of voting machines
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose has thwarted an effort that residents in a pair of rural counties launched to bar the use of voting machines.
The state’s top elections officials ruled that the process they attempted to use was illegal under Ohio law, Signal Ohio reported.
This week, LaRose issued an advisory, No. 2025-04, about petitions residents in Seneca and Monroe counties filed using Secretary of State Form No. 6-D. In essence, LaRose said state law only allows voters to adopt voting machines; they cannot repeal them once they’re implemented.
“This Advisory is to alert boards of elections to the attempted use of Secretary of State Form No. 6-D in a manner not authorized by Ohio law,” LaRose wrote. “Recently, in at least two counties, petitioners have filed Secretary of State Form No. 6-D, Petition for Election on the Question ‘Shall Voting Machines be Adopted?’” he wrote.
“However, in each instance, the use of voting machines was already adopted, years before these petition efforts were underway,” LaRose added. “The petitioners’ goal is to repeal authorization for voting machines in these counties. However, the relevant statute does not provide for repeal in this manner.”
According to LaRose’s interpretation of the petition, the resident’s “theory” appears to be that if a majority of citizens now vote “no” on the question of adopting the use of machines, machines would no longer be authorized in that county. This is incorrect, LaRose concluded.
“However, because these counties have already adopted the use of voting machines, what petitioners are actually seeking is a repeal of the prior adoption of the use of machines,” LaRose wrote. “Their theory appears to be that if a majority of citizens now vote ‘no’ on the question of adopting the use of machines, machines would no longer be authorized in that county. This is incorrect.”
In his memo, LaRose said the language of the specific section of the Ohio Revised Code that is in question, Section 3506.02, is indisputable.
“By its plain terms, it provides a mechanism for electors to vote on ‘the adoption of such equipment in such county,’” LaRose wrote. “It does not provide for the repeal of a prior authorization through that same mechanism.3 If the legislature had intended to include a repeal process in R.C. 3506.02(C), it could have done so.4 It did not. Indeed, the General Assembly has considered, but has not adopted, legislation that would allow the process petitioners seek to use here,” he wrote.
“This Advisory does not take a position on the merits of the petitioners’ underlying goal,” LaRose added. “However, elections officials must give effect to the words used in the statute, and cannot insert words not used by the legislature. R.C. 3506.02(C) does not provide for repealing a county’s authorization of voting machines through this process, and such petitions must be rejected.”
After LaRose handed down his opinion, the boards of election in Monroe and Seneca counties voted to reject the citizen petitions, Signal Ohio reported.
“In Ohio, elections can be canceled and rescheduled at a cost of millions to taxpayers without a specific law,” Marcell Strbich, who is running for secretary of state next year, said in a post to X. “However, in cash-strapped rural counties, citizen-led petitions to opt out of voting machines are denied due to the absence of legal provisions.”
Concerns about voting machines have been a recurring topic in election discussions for years. These discussions long predate President Trump’s concerns that he raised after his loss in November 2020, though many media outlets today overlook or neglect to mention earlier discussions about voting machine concerns.
“Polling shows there’s a lot of belief in our election system around the country and in Ohio,” Aaron Ockerman, director of the Ohio Elections Officials Association, a lobbying group for Ohio’s elections officials, told Signal Ohio. ‘I think we’re happy to address the concerns of a very small portion of our electorate that has them.”
