Slate put up a new interactive feature this week that is definitely worth a look. It is a diagram of five of the most serious abuses of power at the Bush White House and Department of Justice--who the major players are, how they relate to each other, and links to relevant stories and documents. Each of the five areas have been major focal points in the Judiciary Committee's oversight of the Administration in the last year-and-a-half, and will continue to be of great importance in the work that still lies ahead.

Yesterday the attention of the Judiciary Committee was turned to an issue of paramount importance in the waning days of the 110th Congress--ensuring the fairness of this fall's elections. The Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties held a hearing on "Lessons Learned from the 2004 Election," which included testimony from former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell and former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Hans von Spakovsky. Much to my disappointment, however, the Department of Justice did not send a representative to testify at today's hearing. This was despite the assurances the Attorney General gave at his appearance before the Committee this Wednesday that making sure the November 4 elections run smoothly is one of his top priorities. The Department's engagement and cooperation is crucial--- so that we are not only learning the lessons of voter disenfranchisement from past elections, but applying them to the preparations for 2008. For more on today's hearing, Bradblog.com has this story.

We in the Judiciary Committee are not the only ones focusing on voting rights this week, however. The New York Times also ran this editorial about the need for reforms and new regulations regarding ballot design. The editorial responds to a report released by the Brennan Center on ballot design throughout the country, which claims that "eight years after the 2000 election, and billions of dollars spent on new voting technology, the problems caused by poor ballot design have not been fully and effectively addressed on a national level. Year in and year out, we see the same mistakes in ballot design, with the same results: tens, and sometimes hundreds, of thousands of voters disenfranchised by confusing ballot design and instructions, sometimes raising serious questions about whether the intended choice of the voters was certi?ed as the winner." You can find the full report here.

I went to Texas this weekend to hear from those who have been wrongfully convicted of crimes, but later exonerated with DNA evidence.  I visited at the invitation of Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson and spoke with a number of former prisoners who told heartwrenching stories about their experiences.  I was deeply moved by these stories and am so grateful that DNA evidence is available to free those who never deserved to be in jail in the first place.

The Dallas Morning News carried some good coverage of the event.

There is an article in this morning's New York Times about a study being released today on the state of health care in America. In a nutshell, the Commonwealth Fund study shows that despite the fact that we pay more for care in this country than in most other industrialized nations, the quality of care does not measure up.

While this simple statement would be readily apparent to the millions of people struggling to pay for basic medical care or to senior citizens choosing between paying for their prescription drugs and their groceries, it is also important to quantify the disparity. It is yet another sign pointing to how badly we need to universal health care coverage.

On Sunday, the New York Times ran this editorial, titled History Deleted at the White House.  It discusses the vote we took in the House last week to pass legislation strengthening the record-keeping practices of Executive Branch agencies.  The measure would help Congress exercise its oversight duties and preserve Administration records for future generations.  The editorial also mentions the possible veto it will get from our "secrecy-obsessed" President. 

The vote and the veto threat come right on the heels of a GAO study about the inconsistency of e-mail preservation by government officials since President Bush took office. 

Cross posted at Huffington Post here.

Today was the deadline for a Judiciary Committee subpoena issued to Karl Rove, demanding his appearance before the Committee to testify on his role in the politicization of the Department of Justice and the politically selective prosecutions of Democrats. Unfortunately, Mr. Rove chose not to show up.

The claim that Mr. Rove and the White House make is that high-level aides to the president are totally immune from compelled congressional testimony. Not that there are certain subjects they cannot discuss in a public hearing, nor that the White House has a right to review questions that are asked, but that they are in a class entirely by themselves -- a separate group that is above the reach of a subpoena and, consequently, above the law.

Over the past 18 months, congressional inquiries have uncovered a level of politicization that runs the breadth of the administration and profoundly threatens one of the core elements of our democracy -- equal justice under law. We have seen it in the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys for partisan political purposes, in the hiring practices at the Justice Department, and apparently in the politically selective prosecution of Democrats like Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Thorough investigation of these abuses of power requires that Congress get answers from the Executive Branch. By ignoring the Judiciary Committee subpoena, Karl Rove and the White House once again showed their utter disregard for our system of checks and balances, for Congress as a co-equal branch of government, and ultimately for the American people.

The question that now confronts the Judiciary Committee and, ultimately, the full House of Representatives, is what action to take in the face of such blatant defiance of the rule of law. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am considering all options. Regardless of the path we take, the end result must be the same: the full restoration of our Constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no one -- not Karl Rove and not the president -- is above the law.

I only have a minute this morning (it's going to be a busy day at the Judiciary Committee, but more about that later) but I want to share with you a great piece on HuffPost about environmental racism in southern California. It includes video of a tour of the low-income and predominantly minority communities surrounding refineries and toxic waste sites and a discussion with members of Communities for a Better Environment, a non-profit group that works on issues of environmental justice.

There was a segment on ABC about modern slavery in Haiti, a tragedy that is widespread in that country.  It is truly heartwrenching to read the accounts of children who are swept up in this deplorable practice.  We have encountered a few examples like the ones described in the ABC piece in our country.  It is hard to believe that slavery still exists, but it is a scourge we are not yet done fighting.

There is an excellent, albeit heartbreaking, article in this morning's Washington Post that I want to share with you. It tells of the Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center in Plainfield, New Jersey, a 130-year-old facility that is likely closing its doors due to financial crisis.

Like all hospitals in New Jersey, Muhlenberg is required by state law to treat anyone who comes through its doors, regardless of their ability to pay. In the past, the hospitals have been reimbursed by the state government for the cost of services to the uninsured and underinsured. But due to major cuts in the reimbursement program, many hospitals can not afford to pick up the tab for care, and are going bankrupt. Six hospitals in New Jersey have closed their doors in the past year and a half, and half of those remaining are operating in the red.

But the story of the hospital closings is not just one of budget shortfalls and excessive costs. Many of the hospitals that have closed are in low-income communities, and many serve predominantly minority and immigrant populations. Patients will now have to travel two or three times the distance to get to the nearest hospital-- a distance that can be significant factor in the treatment of critical conditions.

Though the article recounts a variety of explanations for Muhlenberg Medical Center's demise, it also makes the point that "almost everyone agrees that a key underlying problem is the lack of universal health insurance." The answer to the question of how to save bankrupt hospitals in New Jersey, and all around the country, is not ultimately in restoring state budgets and increasing payments to hospitals for charity care, but rather in a comprehensive fix to our broken health care system-- one that, like H.R. 676, provides universal care to all people, without private insurance and without means-testing.