Though the original report said that among experts \ufffdthere is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud,\ufffd the final version of the report released to the public concluded in its executive summary that \ufffdthere is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud.\ufffd

A number of election law experts, based on their own research, have concluded that the accusations regarding widespread fraud are unjustified. And in this case, one of the two experts hired to do the report was Job Serebrov, a Republican elections lawyers from Arkansas, who defended his research in an e-mail message obtained by The Times that was sent last October to Margaret Sims, a commission staff member.

\ufffdTova and I worked hard to produce a correct, accurate and truthful report,\ufffd Mr. Serebrov wrote, referring to Tova Wang, a voting expert with liberal leanings from the Century Foundation and co-author of the report. \ufffdI could care less that the results are not what the more conservative members of my party wanted.\ufffd

The original report on fraud cites \ufffdevidence of some continued outright intimidation and suppression\ufffd of voters by local officials, especially in some American Indian communities, while the final report says only that voter \ufffdintimidation is also a topic of some debate because there is little agreement concerning what constitutes actionable voter intimidation.\ufffd

The original report said most experts believe that \ufffdfalse registration forms have not resulted in polling place fraud,\ufffd but the final report cites \ufffdregistration drives by nongovernmental groups as a source of fraud.\ufffd