<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Another North Carolina Ballot Access Case Gets a Hearing Date</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/07/27/another-north-carolina-ballot-access-hearing-date-set/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/07/27/another-north-carolina-ballot-access-hearing-date-set/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:30:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=7558</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY &#187; State Supreme Court to hear ballot access case</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/07/27/another-north-carolina-ballot-access-hearing-date-set/comment-page-1/#comment-800953</link>
		<dc:creator>THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY &#187; State Supreme Court to hear ballot access case</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:22:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=14219#comment-800953</guid>
		<description>[...] solely about the number of signatures needed to get on the ballot,” he said in his newsletter Ballot Access News. “However, the case also challenges the state’s refusal to let a party qualify in just one [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] solely about the number of signatures needed to get on the ballot,” he said in his newsletter Ballot Access News. “However, the case also challenges the state’s refusal to let a party qualify in just one [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Demo Rep</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/07/27/another-north-carolina-ballot-access-hearing-date-set/comment-page-1/#comment-800655</link>
		<dc:creator>Demo Rep</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 03:52:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=14219#comment-800655</guid>
		<description>Separate is still NOT equal -- even in NC.

Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Separate is still NOT equal &#8212; even in NC.</p>
<p>Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: State Supreme Court to hear ballot access case &#124; Liberty Point</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/07/27/another-north-carolina-ballot-access-hearing-date-set/comment-page-1/#comment-800605</link>
		<dc:creator>State Supreme Court to hear ballot access case &#124; Liberty Point</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:33:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=14219#comment-800605</guid>
		<description>[...] solely about the number of signatures needed to get on the ballot,” he said in his newsletter Ballot Access News. “However, the case also challenges the state’s refusal to let a party qualify in just one [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] solely about the number of signatures needed to get on the ballot,” he said in his newsletter Ballot Access News. “However, the case also challenges the state’s refusal to let a party qualify in just one [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

