The ballot item so creatively called Issue No. 4 (it comes after 3!) is more formally known as the Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Amendment--and it's alcoholic beverages that this proposal would make legal everywhere in the state. One uniform law would replace the patchwork of wet and dry counties Arkansas now has. Which may sound good on first, superficial impression, but then . . . .
The thing is, Issue No. 4 isn't a good idea. At least not for those of us who believe in leaving local decisions to local people. But neither is it a good idea to say Issue No. 4 is something it's not. While we appreciate all those folks who get involved in grassroots politics these days, or at least most of them, let's not go overboard, folks. And always put accuracy before enthusiasm. No matter how welcome civic engagement may be in these apathetic times.
Just keep this in mind: If this Alcoholic Beverage Amendment passes, it would legalize the sale of booze in all of Arkansas' counties. And dry counties would disappear. That's reason enough to vote against it. If folks want to keep living in a dry county, why not let 'em? The idea of local option is still worth preserving.
But here's what this proposed amendment to the state constitution does not provide, for the information of our friends who may have spent a little too much time on the internet of late.
For example, someone named Rosie from Grant County (her last name wasn't revealed) is quoted on a website as saying that, if this thing passes, "our local right to decide on issues that affect our community will be lost--forever!"
Forever? Really? As in until the end of time? Forever is a long time. Some of us are still smiling indulgently about the hubris of the United States Postal Service when it decided to start issuing Forever Stamps, which could prove to be history in a few more years. The end of time always has been easier to proclaim than assure.
Yes, Miss Rosie, if this Issue No. 4 passes, you might indeed see a few beers sold at the gas station up the road soon enough. But if enough people get riled up about it later, they can always propose an Issue No. 4 of their own, only in reverse. Let's not make guesses about what our kids, grandkids, and people living in 2138 A.D. might take it into their heads to decide.
One anti-Issue No. 4 website said that if this constitutional amendment passes, every convenience store and service station in the state would be selling alcoholic beverages. That's some prediction. We ourselves are not sufficiently clairvoyant to say what every business owner in Arkansas will do. We'll have to leave that game to the swamis among us.
One video making the rounds quotes a number of people--a lot of people--bemoaning the number of liquor stores that would open up "right next to schools" if this amendment is passed.
But according to the director of the state's Alcoholic Beverage Control Administration, that's not likely. Michael Langley, whom we spoke with just last week, says current law forbids a liquor store from opening within 1,000 feet of a school. Would an amendment making all Arkansas counties wet change that?
"Until a court tells us differently," says Director Langley, "we will still enforce the 1,000-feet law. The law will remain on the books if this passes. If somebody disagrees with the law on the books, they'd have to file a lawsuit and [appeal to] the courts."
Of course, he added, the Legislature could always change the law, and allow liquor stores to open next door to the elementary school in your neighborhood.
But let's just call that possibility, uh, unlikely. As in, the Ledge is more likely to outlaw tomatoes.
For all the hyperbole making the rounds out there, here's where the opposition to Issue No. 4 has a point: Local control of these kinds of decisions is the best kind of control. It's democracy in action at the most basic, local level. It's self-determination closest to home. And we're all for that.
Unless they're abusing the rights of others, or doing something else beyond decent bounds, folks in small subdivisions of government--like counties--should generally be left to make their own decisions.
In the Catholic Church, this principle is called subsidiarity: Let the smallest subsidiary of an organization, the one closest to its problems, solve them. And the Catholic Church has a long record of running complex organizations--like itself. So this is good advice from an experienced source.
Some of us don't understand why a county would want to give up the tax revenue that comes with beer sales. But if the people in Columbia County on the Louisiana line don't want liquor stores dotting their highways, who are the people of Pulaski County to say otherwise? And if Clay County right on the Missouri border in the Mississippi Delta wants to stay dry, why should folks over in the Ozarks get a say on the matter?
Arkansas is a bunch of different places. Take a picture of The River in Chicot County and compare it with one of Benton County's hills. Even counties right next to each other--say, Pulaski and Lonoke--can be worlds apart politically, economically, and culturally in general.
Want liquor sold in your county? Vote to allow it. But no need to impose your own preference on the next county over. That would be impolite, even rude. And not very Arkansas.
So vote AGAINST Issue No. 4.
Editorial on 10/14/2014