MONTGOMERY, Ala. — In a ruling Friday afternoon, the Alabama Supreme Court overturned a 2009 law allowing small cities in “dry” counties to vote to sell alcohol.
The law allowed dry county cities with populations of more than 1,000 to vote themselves wet, with the exception of cities in Blount, Clay, and Randolph counties. The previous threshold was 7,000. The state Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause by excluding cities in those three counties.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court said it could not simply remove the three counties from the statute, because doing so would “undermine the clear intent of the legislature.”
The suit was brought by two Blount County pastors who have fought for years to keep cities in the county from being able to vote for alcohol sales. Blount County Judge Steven King had previously ruled that the law was unconstitutional, and cities within the county could vote to “go wet.”
Last year three Blount county cities, Oneonta (population 6,674), Blountsville (population 1,707), and Cleveland (population 1,320) voted to sell alcohol within their cities’ limits.
The ruling did not make clear whether the dozens of cities in dry counties that have voted to allow beer, wine, and liquor sales over the last six years would have to completely stop immediately, or if it would only apply to cities looking to vote in the future.
The state Supreme Court’s ruling remands the case back to Judge King in Blount County for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Edward Lowe, city manager for Oneonta, told Yellowhammer Friday that city officials have informed retailers they may continue selling while the city files a motion to reconsider with Judge King.
According to Yellowhammer sources familiar with the inner workings of the Alabama Beverage Control (ABC) Board, the ABC is not compelled to act to end sales in Blount County until 18 days after the ruling, possibly giving time for state legislators to act or for other motions to go before the Supreme Court.
Like many cities with populations between 1,000 and 7,000 that have voted to go wet since 2009, Oneonta has become accustomed to the revenue streams from alcohol sales.
“Our sales tax since we started selling alcohol is up 14.5%, so obviously there’s a financial consideration,” Mr. Lowe told Yellowhammer. “We earmark 25% of the beer excise tax for education, and 25% of it to public safety. The remainder of it goes in the general fund for the city.”
Mr. Lowe is concerned that ending alcohol sales in the city would also be detrimental to the economic development of the area.
“In the last 45 days, I’ve talked to 6 either realtors or developers that have inquired about retail property here in the city. From a retail development standpoint, selling alcohol is imperative to growth.”
Being able to purchase a drink in the city limits is so important to attracting business, Lowe said, that Oneonta missed out on development opportunities when the city was dry, simply because companies wanted their employees to be able to get a beer after work.
“I personally was at a meeting where a group out of Chicago came and looked at some industrial property and they realized that they could not buy a drink at a restaurant after work, they said ‘my guys won’t want to live here,'” Lowe told Yellowhammer.
Eric Johnston, the lawyer for the two Blount County pastors who appealed Judge King’s decision to the Supreme Court said that cities shouldn’t complain. “[The towns] did it knowing this law was defective,” Johnston said.
“They should not complain now about losing money, spending money.”
To reinstate those smaller cities’ ability to vote again, the Alabama Legislature would need to pass, and the Governor sign, a completely new law that does not exclude any counties.
Like this article? Hate it? Follow me and let me know how you feel on Twitter!
— Elizabeth BeShears (@LizEBeesh) January 21, 2015
Don’t miss out! Subscribe today to have Alabama’s leading headlines delivered to your inbox.