Question Three on the Massachusetts ballot this election asks voters whether changes should be made to alcohol sales in the state.
If approved, the question would allow chain store owners to have more licenses to sell beer and wine, but fewer to sell all alcoholic beverages. It would also outlaw the use of self-service checkout machines for purchases and would allow buyers to use out-of-state IDs.
Carrie Healy, NEPM: So, Adam, how would the limits on liquor licenses change?
Adam Frenier, NEPM: Retailers would see the number of beer and wine licenses they could hold gradually increase from the current nine eventually to 18 in about a decade. The limit on licenses to sell all alcoholic products would drop from nine to seven, but businesses with nine currently would be exempted from the change. Businesses could theoretically hold up to nine beer and wine licenses and nine more for all liquor.
Why the change?
Proponents say allowing grocery and convenience stores to hold more licenses to sell beer and wine is good for consumers, and dropping the cap on full liquor licenses will help protect smaller shops.
The Massachusetts Package Stores Association says when the cap for full licenses went from seven to nine about a decade ago, it hurt local businesses and forced many to close.
Now, to be clear, this question does not change the number of licenses each community can hand out. It just changes how many each company can hold.
And what about the opposition to this ballot question?
That's where this gets a little tricky. The group Food Stores for Consumer Choice, led by Cumberland Farms, pushed to have the question thrown off the ballot but lost that legal battle. So instead of continuing the fight, they decided not to put up opposition in the election.
Instead, a large national chain, Total Wines, took up the fight. They spent more than $2 million, including on TV ads fighting Question Three. A spokesperson for the company told me in an email that the proposal is bad for consumers because it stifles competition and could lead to higher prices.
Any response to that claim?
Rob Mellion, the executive director at the Massachusetts Package Stores Association, called Total Wine's ads "false advertising." He accused them of trying to portray themselves as a small business being harmed by Question Three. He also said Food Stores for Consumer Choice, that Cumberland Farms group, really is mounting some kind of opposition, even if they said they aren't.
“We think that's a little disingenuous to say that they're not taking interest in this, because obviously the sword and shield is being applied by Total Wine on their behalf," Mellion said.
So why does the original opposition group say they're not putting up a fight?
Their lawyer, Louis Rizoli, told me there is some support in their group for the expanded licenses, and they hope to make more changes through the Legislature. There's hope that they can get a bill passed, creating a different class of licenses just for grocery and convenience stores.
And what about the other provisions of this ballot question?
Those don't seem to be getting quite as much attention as the licensing pieces. One would ban the sale of alcohol by using automatic checkout machines. Mellion of the Package Stores Association says other regulated products like tobacco and prescriptions aren't allowed through these machines, and alcohol shouldn't be either.
And if Question Three passes, retailers could accept out-of-state driver's licenses for ID to purchase liquor, beer and wine. Mellion says this would be tourism friendly, and on both counts, the opposing parties really don't seem too concerned.
