I don't see how the lawsuit has a leg to stand on.
It's actually more fair than SQ 791, which would have said that grocery and convenience stores within a certain distance from a liquor store could not sell beer/wine.
The RLAO is acting like liquor stores and grocery/convenience stores are equal entities and the law favors the grocers. This would be the case, except for the fact that liquor stores are still the only entities that can sell hard liquor. If a liquor store makes most of its profit off beer and wine and wanted to open more than two locations, is anything preventing them from getting out of hard liquor sales and thus falling under the same regulations as grocers and convenience stores?
As long as liquor stores can sell hard liquor and grocery and convenience stores can't, I don't see how this holds up as unfair treatment. The law shouldn't be designed to protect a business model that was unfair to begin with and should have been done away with in 1959.
In a worst-case scenario however, what happens with SQ 792? Is it possible that the court strikes down certain aspects of it, or will the state have to go back to the drawing board and pass another ballot measure?
Bookmarks