<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Adam Schachter &#8211; SaintPetersBlog</title>
	<atom:link href="https://saintpetersblog.com/tag/adam-schachter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://saintpetersblog.com/</link>
	<description>Life and politics from the Sunshine State&#039;s best city</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2016 14:31:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.1</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Florida Supreme Court considers gambling amendment</title>
		<link>https://saintpetersblog.com/florida-supreme-court-considers-gambling-amendment/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim Rosica]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2016 14:31:34 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Statewide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Top Headlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adam Schachter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gretna Racing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marc Dunbar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voter Control of Gambling Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voters in Charge]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://saintpetersblog.com/?p=270426</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[While the attorney for the Voter Control of Gambling amendment said it would address a “lack of clarity,” the state&#8217;s justices seemed to lack clarity about just what the constitutional change would do. The Florida Supreme Court heard oral argument Wednesday. It must OK proposed amendments to ensure they cover only one subject and that their ballot title and summary aren’t misleading. The amendment’s backers, Voters in Charge, wants to “ensure that Florida voters shall have the exclusive right to&#8230;]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
