While the author clearly has an interest in promoting his side of the story, he comes off as fairly even-handed in his critique. Nevertheless this topic should be investigated by reporters.

This has appeared in the news, and here the author is mostly supporting the news now that she is not under gag order.

this is a first-hand account of a study for the election commission by one of the study researchers about what happened to their report on the way to publication and public dissemination. I have no reason to doubt her account, but as a story it needs at the least some quoted pieces from her study compared with the final submitted report. i'd also need to hear the perspectives from others hired to create the bipartisan balance. putting it in context with the justice departments more publicized actions was helpful to the piece.

Author is upset that she was unable to express her personal opinions with the Election Assistance Commission's stamp of approval. Apparently the commission didn't agree with the author's opinions and either modified them or suppressed them. That's life. You do a job for Uncle Sam, and Uncle has the right to change things to suit himself.