Editor’s note: This is the third of four stories explaining the four statewide questions on the Nov. 8 general election ballot. This one, about Question 2, is written by Beacon Hill Roll Call.
BOSTON — The third question on the November ballot asks Massachusetts voters if they support a law that would increase the statewide limits on the combined number of licenses that one retailer could control for the sale of alcoholic beverages and beer and wine for off-premises (non-restaurant and bar) consumption.
Off-premises includes package stores, supermarkets and other venues where alcohol can be purchased but not consumed. The law would increase the number from the current nine to 12 licenses in 2023; 15 licenses in 2027 and 18 licenses in 2031.
Other provisions would prohibit retailers from allowing customers to self-checkout and would allow only face-to-face checkout between a customer and a cashier; allow retailers to accept an out-of-state drivers’ license as proof of age of customers; and change the current system of calculating the fine that the state is allowed to accept instead of suspending a license because of a violation of the law.
Current law bases the fine on the gross profits of the sale of alcoholic beverages. The ballot question would base the fine on the gross profits of all retail sales.
The proposal is sponsored by the 21st Century Alcohol Retail Reform Committee. Chief opposition to the proposal is listed as the Food Stores for Consumer Choice.
“Locally owned and managed retailers of beer, wine and spirits from across the state are asking Massachusetts voters to vote ‘Yes’ on Question 3,” said Rob Mellion, a spokesperson for the “Yes on 3” campaign. “Question 3 expands consumer convenience, supports tourism and strengthens public safety. Question 3 is a win-win for Massachusetts consumers because it responsibly expands off-premises alcohol licenses in a way that also supports local businesses and the communities that they serve.”
Said Mellion: “This has been a grassroots effort where local retailers from across the state are banding together in marshaling resources to educate voters on why Question 3 must pass. With their backs against the wall, these small businesses are putting everything on the line because a ‘Yes’ vote helps to preserve the future of ‘Main Street’ Massachusetts.”
The “No on 3” campaign did not respond to repeated requests to answer questions about its campaign and about published reports that the campaign has essentially disbanded its efforts to defeat Question 3. The link to the campaign’s website does not work and phone calls went to voicemail.
Mellion said the rumor that the opposition has disbanded is false.
“The opposition are saying this to appear sympathetic but in reality, surrogates are using false advertising in television ads to make it appear that small businesses are against Question 3,” Mellion said. “Question 3 was filed by locally owned stores across the state. The ads currently airing on multiple stations were produced by Massachusetts Fine Wine and Spirits LLC, which is the legal name in Massachusetts for Total Wine.
“There is nothing ‘small business’ about these ads, which are intended to mislead voters … Needless to say, this is a David v. Goliath contest where local stores are fighting for their existence. The big money from the mostly out-of-state headquartered opposition is coming.”
In the Redbook, the book distributed by the Secretary of State to households across the state that provides information to voters on ballot questions, those against Question 3 said that the state’s alcohol licensing laws do need serious reforms, but this ballot measure is not the answer.
“It offers an incomplete solution to a complex problem, doing little to promote competition or expand consumer choice,” the opposition wrote. “Despite some superficially popular provisions designed to entice voters, it fails to lift outdated restrictions on local decision-making, while in fact moving Massachusetts backwards in several significant ways: imposing unfair penalties against retailers who sell more than just alcohol, like grocers and other food stores; outlawing convenient and reliable point-of-sale technologies already in widespread use by retailers across the state; and decreasing the number of full liquor licenses that retailers can own.”