INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — The General Assembly considers nearly every year whether Indiana should lift its ban on Sunday retail alcohol sales and if it should allow grocery, stores and convenience stores to sell cold beer.
The answer repeatedly has been a resounding no, even though the convenience and grocery store owners argue Indiana’s law is arbitrary and discriminates against them. U.S. District Judge Richard L. Young last month ruled Indiana has the right to decide who can sell cold beer.
So why does the package liquor store lobby consistently manage to thwart efforts by the larger grocery store and convenience store lobbies to repeal the decades-old laws? Political observers said the liquor store owners have the home-court advantage over grocery, pharmacy and convenience store chains, most of which are based out of state.
Andy Downs, director of the Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics at IUPUI Fort Wayne, said the debate over alcohol sales is unique because it often breaks down by legislative district rather than party lines. Lawmakers don’t want to hurt local businesses, he said.
“If you think of the district where you live, how many liquor stores are in that district and how many grocery or convenience stores? And which ones are locally owned?” he told The Indianapolis Star.
David Orentlicher, a law professor at IUPUI at Indianapolis and former Democrat state lawmaker, said the status quo is the easiest path for lawmakers as long as no one is making a compelling argument that changing the alcohol laws will grow the economy.
“If you can make a case about growing the pie, then it’s easier to satisfy everyone,” he said. “But if you are dividing up the existing pie, then it’s hard to gain a strong consensus for that change.”
Scot Imus, president of the Indiana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, Imus said his group can’t focus on only one or two issues like the liquor store industry can.
People who want to change the laws said it’s a matter of convenience and that Indiana residents should be allowed to buy alcohol on the second biggest shopping day of the week.
Opponents said expanding the law will make it easier for minors to buy alcohol, create more opportunities for drunken driving and put the smaller package liquor stores out of business.
So far, the push for change has gained little support in the Indiana General Assembly. The Senate never has held a hearing on the issues during a legislative session and the House held a committee hearing on Sunday sales in 2013, but the issue never came to a vote.
Patrick Tamm, the president of the Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers, believes package liquor stores have been so successful because they’re on the right side of good public policy.
“Really, it’s a matter of how do you want alcohol sold in your community — highly regulated or highly unregulated?” Tamm asked. “This isn’t about drinking milk or water.”
But he also concedes that liquor stores being locally owned helps.
“We are oftentimes the locally owned store and the locally owned business in the community,” he said. “And our competitors are not. The Walmarts and Krogers of the world, the regional, national and international businesses, are frankly looking to put us out of business.”
Read More
The eyes and ears of the David Owsley Museum of Art
By Madelyn Bracken / 6 hours agoThe David Owsley Museum of Art (DOMA) doesn’t only house art. For many Ball State University students, it houses opportunity. Graduate and social media assistant, and former DOMA intern and guard, Taylor Hamblin spent the past two years working at the museum surrounded with possibilities to further her career while at Ball State.
Center for Peace offers academic opportunities
By Meghan Braddy and Grayson Joslin / YesterdayOver the years, the center has offered a peace studies minor, conflict resolution training and grant funding.
AP: New York appeals court overturns Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 conviction
By Staff Reports / YesterdayNew York’s highest court on Thursday overturned Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction, finding the judge at the landmark #MeToo trial prejudiced the ex-movie mogul with “egregious” improper rulings, including a decision to let women testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case, according to the Associated Press (AP).
