<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rss [<!ENTITY % HTMLlat1 PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES Latin 1 for XHTML//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml-lat1.ent">]>
<rss version="0.92" xml:base="http://www.publicampaign.org">
<channel>
 <title>Public Campaign - Judges to the Fore - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2008/01/29/judges-to-the-fore</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Judges to the Fore&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Judges to the Fore</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2008/01/29/judges-to-the-fore</link>
 <description>According to the &lt;em&gt;Charleston Daily Mail&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dailymail.com/News/statenews/200801290561&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;spontaneous debate broke out&amp;quot; &lt;/a&gt;in the West Virginia Senate today over whether judges should be appointed or elected, and, if elected, whether there should be a Clean Elections option (like the one in North Carolina) to allow judges to run without taking money from attorneys and other interested parties.  </description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:25:18 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
