In Snellville, where political discord is a way of life, there is a battle raging over the sale of liquor on Sunday. The combatants are the usual suspects– Bible-thumping legislators of morality attempting to impose their version of Christianity on others against the primarily apolitical business community and the politicians seeking to grow the tax base.

Here is a recap of the skirmish to date: in 2004, Snellville voters approved a referendum authorizing the City Council to adopt an ordinance allowing and regulating liquor by the drink. The Council adopted the ordinance, but the majority at the time refused to allow Sunday sales, saying that the referendum didn’t specifically address the question.

Fast forward to 2009. The Council voted to authorize a second referendum specifically directed at Sunday sales, but a miscount of days by the city attorney (there must be 40 days between the calling for a referendum and the vote) prevented the Council from putting the question on the November ballot.

The November vote also changed the face of the Council. Now, there is a majority that appears to favor liquor sales on Sunday. Under the advice of the same attorney that bungled the count, the new Council voted in December to allow Sunday sales by simply amending the original ordinance.

A group of Snellville residents sued to prevent the city from moving forward. Last month, Judge Mark A. Lewis ruled that the city acted improperly and that the handful of liquor licenses that were approved after the December vote must be revoked.

I believe that the judge interpreted state law correctly. I also believe that the law the judge upheld is improper and should be rescinded.

The wording of the referendum on `liquor by the drink` that passed in Snellville on November 2, 2004 reads:

“Shall the governing authority of the City of Snellville, Georgia be authorized to issue licenses to sell distilled spirits for beverage purposes by the drink, such sales to be for consumption only on the premises?”

This is the only referendum on the topic that has been approved. When this ballot issue passed, the City Council was authorized to create an ordinance governing LBTD. There were no restrictions on their authority except that the liquor must be consumed at the place in which it was sold (no package stores). The city could have adopted an ordinance that prohibited LBTD on certain days; prohibited it during certain hours; or even prohibited specific liquors in specific amounts.

In fact, the referendum only authorized the city to adopt an ordinance if it chose; it did not mandate it.

However, there is a statutory restriction on the days and times that liquor can be sold (that being, not on Sunday and not between midnight and 12:30 pm); a restriction that can only be overcome by the approval of a specifically-worded referendum. Georgia law on the topic is clear and unambiguous. OCGA 3-3-7(j)(1) reads:

“Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, in all counties or municipalities in which the sale of alcoholic beverages is lawful for consumption on the premises, the governing authority of the county or municipality may, by resolution or ordinance conditioned on approval in a referendum, authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises on Sundays from 12:30 pm until 12:00 midnight.”

Although I am not an attorney, the meaning of the law seems clear. Liquor can be served by the drink on Sunday only if approved by the voters in a referendum. It appears that the question of Sunday sales MUST be a separate and expressed question; not just assumed with the approval of a general referendum question on LBTD.

It seems that the City had/has two options in 2004 and thereafter:

1) In 2004, the wording of the referendum could have authorized the sale of liquor on Sunday, Snellville lying within a county “in which the sale of alcoholic beverages is [already] lawful for consumption on the premises….”. Perhaps, in hindsight, it need not have been a general question of “liquor by the drink”. (Someone might argue that, even though the county authorized LBTD, that did not automatically give the city the right to authorize it without its own referendum; that may be correct);

2) In 2004, the wording of the referendum could have authorized BOTH the sale of liquor by the drink generally AND the sale of liquor on Sunday. There could even have been TWO ballot questions with Sunday sales contingent on the approval of the general LBTD referendum;

3) Having permitted liquor by the drink generally in 2004, the Council could now hold a second referendum requesting authorization to adopt an ordinance allowing Sunday sales.

I have never checked to see what other jurisdictions have done. It would be interesting to see how it was handled elsewhere.

The city’s failed argument was based primarily on technicalities… that legal motions were not properly certified and/or filed, for example. The city’s attorney also tried to argue that one part of the above-cited state law allowed the city to authorize liquor on Sunday by ordinance, even when the remainder of the same code section prohibited Sunday sales without a specifically-worded referendum. However, courts generally assume, as a matter of precedent, that laws do not conflict with other laws; and certainly that the State Legislature did not intend that one section of this code should conflict within another part of the same code section.

It’s a common belief that attorneys make an argument on technicalities only when the facts are not on their side.

The city plans to appeal the judge’s decision. From the Mayor’s Tuesday press conference:

“In these economic times, we owe it to our businesses, and the people they employ, to do everything within our power to allow them to compete on a level playing field with others in Gwinnett County. Over the past few weeks, our restaurants have seen as much as a 65% increase in their overall sales on Sunday. We cannot ignore this proof of the economic impact this extra day has had on our City.”

I am all for economic growth… God knows, we need it right now. But economic growth must never justify ignoring the law and personal freedom. That’s the same thinking that brought us Kelo v. New London, which sanctioned the taking of real property via condemnation to turn it over to a developer solely to enhance the tax digest.

There should not be a law restricting the sale of alcohol on Sunday in the first place. I want to live in a county in which adults are not prohibited from exercising their freedom to pursue happiness, even if that includes a bourbon and Coke on Sunday. However, I cannot ignore a clear reading of the current law that appears to require a specifically-worded, maybe even separate referendum to allow Sunday sales.

It seems silly to me that opponents make the argument for “keeping the Lord’s day holy” while railing against the insidious spread of Islam across the globe. The same Constitution that protects my pursuit of happiness also prevents the government from imposing anybody else’s morality on me. The “no Sunday sales” crowd decries the imposition of Sharia law on the masses, but has not  no problem with the use of government force to impose “Baptist law” on everybody.

(That said by a born again, Spirit-filled Christian who appreciates that the Founding Fathers ensured my freedom to worship the God of my choice by limiting the power of the government, whether the laws are being made by Muslims or by Baptists….)

(Whew! Now, I need a drink. What day is it?)

I welcome a dissenting opinion on the law from an attorney. We’ll publish it right here. Non-attorneys can post their comments below (free user account required).

[Update: I have published a more detailed analysis of the legal issues in the TalkGwinnett.net discussion forum.]

More on This Topic:

• Snellville Paying the Price for Councilmembers` Idiocy
• Troubling Trend: Politicians Using Law to Shield Themselves From Criticism
• Monday Morning Catch-Up: 3/23
• Former Mayor to State Senator: Butt Out