A Modern ‘Baptist and Bootleggers’ Coalition Fights Arkansas Liquor Initiative

In my recent analysis of

voter initiatives appearing on November ballots across the
country, I took very brief note of a pending decision in Arkansas.
Voters in the state will decide whether to change the law to
require all counties to allow the
sale, distribution and transportation of alcohol. Currently,
counties and communities call the shots. About half allow and half
do not. 

Naturally, this means that those who serve or sell alcohol in
the “wet” counties financially benefit from being next to “dry”
counties that prohibit it. Therefore existing liquor stores and
bars in the state are fighting the ballot initiative, and they’re
teaming up with local religious leaders, according to Bloomberg
news. One liquor store estimates it will lose ten percent of its
sales if nearby counties are required to allow booze. Opponents of
the ballot initative are attempting to argue its about choice,

not about bans:

Larry Page, a Southern Baptist pastor and director of the
Arkansas Faith and Ethics Council, which traces its roots to the
Anti-Saloon League of Arkansas in 1899, said the initiative is
about more than just the dangers of alcohol.

“We’re not saying, ‘Hey, instead of voting the whole state wet,
let’s vote the whole state dry,'” he said. “We’re just saying, ‘Let
people locally continue to make the decision.'”

It’s not the first time political issues have made for strange
bedfellows, Page said, recalling when his group joined with
feminists to oppose pornography and cooperated with Mississippi
casinos to fight gambling in Arkansas.

A defense of bans that can be summarized as “Let’s let the
community decide whether certain types of commerce should be
allowed,” has been used elsewhere. Colorado Democratic Rep. Jared
Polis used such an argument when he introduced (but later
withdrew) ballot initiatives in his state that would allow
cities to
ban fracking. After California legalized medical marijuana
dispensaries, individual cities had battles on their hands to
decide whether they would allow them.

“Let the community decide” has a certain small government appeal
to it, but let’s not forget that sometimes what the community is
deciding is whether they’ll respect the rights of others to engage
in commerce or to do what they wish with their own property. And as
in this case, we generally see the argument used to curtail
people’s rights, not to advance recognition of them.

(Hat tip to Scott
Lincicome)