House Bill on Wet-Dry Referendums Passes
A reader pointed out in email that HB393 passed the House without much fanfare this week. The bill would allow communities with fewer than 7000 residents to have a referendum to go from wet to dry or dry to wet.
We can imagine without difficulty which of the two options (changing from wet to dry or from dry to wet) will be featured in more elections. The economic incentive and deep pockets are on the side of going wet, and available campaign money will have larger influence in smaller communities. Even conservative Wal-Mart has financed elections to change communities from dry to wet.
Related Articles:
This may be a dumb question, but what option do communities with a population smaller than 7,000 presently have to call for the vote? I thought all towns had the right via petition drives.
Comment by The Sandman — April 3, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
Not a dumb question… The wet-dry issue was decided on a county-wide basis until some years back the current law was passed that gave communities with more than 7000 residents the option, to be decided by referendum, to differ from the county as a whole.
If a muncipality has voted to go wet, then municipalities of 4000 or more residents in that same county can hold a referendum on going wet.
Other than that, the issue is decided by the county.
[Edit: I edited my comment. I had left out the key phrase “in that same county.”]
Comment by Danny — April 3, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
The level at which the decision concerning alcohol use is made continues to asymptotically approach the proper point: the household…or better, the individual.
Comment by Peter — April 3, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
Shouldn’t the last read “… change dry to wet.” Better margin on beer than orange crush.
Comment by walt moffett — April 3, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
Yep… really blunts the point to get it backward. Thanks. Fixed.
Comment by Danny — April 3, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
And if you had read the Digest on Wednesday, you would have known that this bill moved this week.
Comment by G — April 4, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
Thanks, G. I meant to link to the story from your Digest. I fixed that now too. (And if you were talking to me, I did see the story in the Digest.)
Apparently, I typed this post much too quickly. Any other fixes?
Will be interesting to see who, if anyone, perks up when this issue goes to the Senate.
Comment by Danny — April 5, 2008 @ 12:40 am
This bill came before the Senate yesterday (May 6) on the Special Order Calendar and its status is currently listed as “Carried Over to Call of the Chair”.
Pardon my ignorance, but does this mean that the bill is effectively dead?
Comment by Chris — May 7, 2008 @ 9:16 am
More like its undead. It can be brought up again if the Chair so wishes. Which means its deal making time for the bill’s proponents/opponents.
Comment by walt moffett — May 7, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
I live in a dry county and think its stupid that in a country where I am supposed to be free to choose for myself whether to buy alcohol and I should not have to drive to the next county to buy it. In Blount County we coukld have paved every road in this county and built a school for all the tax revenue we have lost to neighboring counties in alcohol sales. Its stupid to be dry when you have wet counties around you.
Comment by Bud Meister — May 19, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
I am thinking of moving to a dry county and wonder if it is illegal to transport alchol from a wet county to a dry county? It seems to be illegal from what I’ve read.
Comment by Sunshine — July 31, 2008 @ 5:24 am