] On its own, Allen's experience seems easy to dismiss, but
] it's part of a pattern, the voting activists say, that
] reveals the voting industry's desire to keep people off.
] The worst transgression, one that almost everyone
] interviewed pointed to, occurred in a conference call on
] Sept. 16. The agenda for that meeting was sent to
] participants before the call, and it clearly states that
] the first order of business would be to approve new
] members, after which the committee would decide whether
] or not the draft standard was ready to be approved. The
] new members up for approval that day were Jim Adler,
] Alice Allen, Chuck Corry, David Dill, G.D. Miller, Ted
] Selker and Barbara Simons -- many of whom are in favor of
] verifiable audit trails in voting machines.
]
] But when people got on the phone that day, Vern Williams,
] a voting security expert at SAIC, an information
] technology consulting firm, suggested that the agenda be
] switched so that new members were approved after the
] committee voted on the draft standard -- a move that
] would ensure that the new members would have no say on
] the proposed standard. Williams' motion passed. Then the
] committee decided to open the draft standard for voting.
] And after that, the new members were approved.
]
] The activists were outraged at this maneuver. "I kept
] saying, 'We've been disenfranchised!'" says Simons, a
] computer scientist who worries about the security of
] electronic voting systems. Simons and others tried to
] reopen the vote on the standard, but one of the committee
] leaders then proposed a motion to adjourn the meeting.
] According to Roberts Rules of Order, an adjournment
] motion takes precedence over other motions. The motion
] won by one vote, and the meeting was adjourned.

This situation concerns me..

Another case of electronic vote-tampering?