Somewhere around the time Franklin Roosevelt first became president, the Minnesota legislature, scrambling to deal with the end of Prohibition, cobbled together a batch of laws to govern the re-introduction of “intoxicating liquor.” To this day, the state remains the prime regulator of liquor distribution, sales, and consumption.
Each biennium, lawmakers construct, debate, and pass an omnibus liquor bill, usually a grab bag of tweaks, exceptions, and modifications, to keep abreast of the changes in the state’s ambivalent embrace of alcohol.
In the eighty-some years since the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment, Minnesota has maintained one law about liquor more or less intact: It shall not be sold on Sundays. Unless you’re in a bar that serves food, or a restaurant that has a bar, or a tap room, or a golf course, or a VFW, or staying at a bed and breakfast, or taking a cooking class, or one of many other “special cases.” But keeping Sundays free from the sale of alcohol for consumption off-premises has remained a perennial winner in Minnesota’s legislature.
Until last year. The law permitting the sale of “growlers,” half-gallon jugs of a brewpub’s own product, was approved, and that renewed the hopes of those who would like to see the end to a number of “archaic” liquor laws.
Andrew Schmitt, the head of Minnesota Beer Activists, describes his group as a grass-roots consumer organization dedicated to “sensible liquor laws,” with an emphasis on allowing all types of Sunday sales. The group’s website solicits support with the phrase “Bring Minnesota out of the dark ages.”
Pro Sunday-sales supporters generally use two strains in their arguments: libertarianism and modernity. The libertarian strain see the state laws as an unwelcome interference in the public’s right to choose and a business owner’s right to transact. “Who are you to tell me what day I can drink, and who are you to tell me what day I must shutter my shop?”
The modernity strain appeals to the public’s sense that some liquor laws are antiquated, remnants of the last century, and don’t account for the profound changes in the state’s demographics, economics, and attitudes towards alcohol. The proliferation of microbreweries, brewpubs, tap rooms, and wine bars calls for a more realistic oversight. Part of that strain sees Sunday liquor proscriptions as a relic of blue laws passed when religious authorities held much more sway in the affairs of the state.
Some statewide polling shows strong support for changes in the laws, and supporters of change point to states (like Colorado) that claim noticeable economic gains after relaxing Sunday prohibitions.
Then why do bills introduced every session to eliminate those prohibitions go down in flames?
Supporters of the status quo have two arguments: Safety and protection. The 1900’s Prohibition came about largely as a result of a moral and religious campaign, but there were practical reasons to see the unregulated flow of alcohol as unhealthy. After Repeal, many state legislatures set up controls to ensure untainted products, and to reduce over-consumption and
underage drinking. But they also established a three-tiered system of production, distribution, and retail sales; removing liquor manufacturers from the wholesale and retail aspects of the business. Thus, the state, in theory, allows businesses to profit while curtailing the excesses of decades past.
The protection argument is the more problematic. Minnesota’s off-sale retail stores are represented, for the most part, by a few organizations that lobby to keep their members whole, and to fight off changes that might cause financial harm. The Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association (MLBA) represents 1,400 bars and liquor stores in the state. The Minnesota Municipal Beverage Association (MMBA) has 800 members. They, the Minnesota Beer Wholesalers Association, and the Teamsters Joint Council 32 support the current Sunday ban.
Many Sunday-sales supporters argue that if some liquor stores don’t want to be open on Sundays that should be their choice, instead of mandating closing for all licensees.
But a possible effect of choice might be that the stores that opt out lose not only business but eventually market share. And the stores that do open on Sunday stand a chance of gaining new and long-term customers. So even an owner who doesn’t want to open Sunday will be forced to by the competition.
Sunday-sales opposers say the overhead of an additional day open would not be offset by additional sales. One lobbyist suggested that buying liquor is more discretionary than buying groceries, and keeping an entire retail system open for such impulse purchases is not worth the effort.
Opposers may not always say what they’re really afraid of: that some alcohol, particularly wine and spirits, will find its way into grocery and convenience stores. Such a move would seriously diminish the value of a liquor license, and license-holders could reasonably claim that their investment in a retail outlet, with its expensive licensing and liabilities, was based upon an expectation of exclusivity.
Ultimately, a certain level of protection for the distribution of a controlled substance is necessary. If sales migrate to convenience stores for sale after bar closing hours, is that an improvement? National liquor brands and big-box liquor outlets are already doing to small off-sale stores what Walmart did to grocery and hardware stores. Will Sunday sales, with all their convenience, make things better or worse, or have little effect? What do our readers think? Send us letters…