Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner hailed Tuesday's primary as a success, which it was when compared with the terrible overcrowding of polling locations in the November 2004 presidential election.

What she didn't say is that the first major election on her watch wasn't appreciably better than the 2006 general election, when Ohioans chose their governor and other statewide elected officials, including Brunner.

Problems occurred Tuesday in some counties, just as they did 16 months ago, but nothing happened that would taint the voting decisions of Ohioans.

The 2006 election saw a flurry of lawsuits and controversies, but in general, the new equipment, both paper-fed optical scanners and touch-screen devices, worked correctly. Touch screens, used in 53 counties, worked well on Tuesday, and Ohioans, given the choice by Brunner to vote on paper, overwhelmingly stayed with the electronic machines. This included Gov. Ted Strickland.

The result of Brunner's unjustified suspicion of electronic voting is that counties are left with tons of costly, unused ballots that by law must be stored for at least 22 months.

In spite of all that, Brunner is adamant that counties abandon the 2-year-old equipment in favor of paper-ballot systems. The General Assembly should oppose that conversion, which would cost an estimated $64 million, double the earlier projection of $31.8 million.

Ohio experienced a record-setting primary turnout of nearly 3.5 million voters. Few voters requested paper ballots in the counties using touch screens. The highest total, 1,817 in Lucas County, represented just 1 percent of the total vote. In more than half of counties reporting paper-vs.-plastic totals, fewer than 100 voters took a paper ballot.

In Franklin County, where touch screens have been used for years, a mere 810 of the 200,000 people who showed up at the polls voted on paper ballots. That calls into question Brunner's contention that Ohioans don't trust electronic voting. The bipartisan Ohio Association of Election Officials, the people who run the state's elections, overwhelmingly opposed Brunner's proposal. Besides, people who prefer paper ballots already can vote on absentee ballots in the comfort of their homes.

The conversion to paper in the most-populous county, Cuyahoga, might have helped that county avoid the serious flaws that occurred in past elections. The county suffered paper-ballot glitches, but that wasn't surprising, given the county's past troubles with voting administration and the fact that the county had little time to prepare for the conversion from electronic machines to paper ballots fed into optical scanners.

A conversion that makes sense for Cuyahoga County isn't necessary or advisable for the vast majority of counties using touch screens successfully.

Despite voters' scant demand for paper ballots, the Franklin County Elections Board is considering tossing out $15 million worth of voting devices, mostly because of pressure from Brunner. That would be a costly mistake, with the taxpayers footing the bill.

Ohioans expressed surprise and relief on Tuesday that Election Day wasn't a repeat of the nightmare of 2004, when most voters were using punch-card systems. The heavy use of absentee voting, including about 87,808 in Franklin County, increases in the number of voting machines and improved planning helped ensure that polling locations weren't crowded. The same factors mean that the state's voters are unlikely to experience in November the long waits that occurred four years earlier.

The lesson for Ohio officials at the state and county levels is that the massive changes proposed by Brunner are irrational and pose a potential risk for errors, because poll workers would be using new equipment and procedures.

While Brunner has failed to undermine the public's confidence in electronic voting, she has interfered with operations in Franklin County and elsewhere.

The best safeguard for voting is the bipartisan management by counties. That is a check on political manipulation by the Republican or Democrat who is elected as secretary of state, the state's highest-ranking elections officer.

Not only does Brunner want to force changes on elections boards, but her actions also indicate unwillingness to tolerate any dissent. The first Democratic secretary of state in 16 years has refused to reappoint or sought to oust nine county elections officials, including Franklin County's Matthew Damschroder. All of them, save two Democrats on the Cuyahoga County board, are Republicans. Her heavy-handed tactics expose her to the kind of accusations of partisanship that were heaped on her predecessor, Republican J. Kenneth Blackwell.

She appears to be ready to move against any official who disagrees with her. Damschroder, as president of the Ohio Association of Election Officials, opposed the statewide conversion to paper ballots. With Brunner breathing down their necks, the bipartisan Franklin County board replaced Damschroder with Dennis L. White, the Democratic deputy director. Damschroder became White's deputy.

She accused Damschroder of lax voting safeguards, a charge unsupported by the evidence. Damschroder has a reputation among election professionals as one of the top voting administrators in Ohio.

A similar case involved Allen County's Keith Cunningham, who was fired from his position on the Ohio Board of Voting Machine Examiners. Cunningham's background is impressive: The longtime director of the Allen County board is a past president of the state Association of Election Officials and is on the board of advisers of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

Brunner said she fired Cunningham because he never would vote to decertify touch screens. Decertification would be necessary if funding is to be secured for the conversion to paper ballots.

Knowing that the eyes of nation again are on Ohio in a presidential year and being too much under the spell of election-conspiracy theorists, Brunner pushed the panic button, seeking massive and exorbitantly expensive changes. Some of her ideas, such as regional vote centers and polls open for 15 days, might be part of Ohio's future. But changes in voting should be gradual rather than rushed, particularly during a presidential year.

Most important is that the health of Ohio's election system lies with the election boards of the 88 counties, the bipartisan teams that know how to conduct elections and whose experience and advice are crucial.

Suppressing or ousting board members who challenge changes is foolish. A ship's captain who muzzles or throws overboard the crew members who warn of icebergs is on a course for disaster.