More Sunday sales slipped in

e-mail this story discuss this issue in our forums

An obscure change in a 1996 law governing the Sunday sale of alcoholic beverages has been interpreted to mean this: Despite voters being told in the city of Greenville — and surely in other places, too — that a Sunday alcohol sales referendum applied only to restaurants, bars and special venues such as concert halls, that law has been expanded to cover convenience stores, grocery stores and liquor stores.

Greenville News reporter John Boyanoski broke the story Tuesday that a recent ruling will give grocery stores and convenience stores in some places the right to sell alcoholic beverages based on earlier referendum votes that seemingly did not cover such alcohol sales.

State law originally required two votes in counties or cities: one that allowed on-site consumption at places such as restaurants and bars, and another that allowed off-premise consumption of alcohol purchased at convenience stores and grocery stores. The difference might mean nothing to many people who think all blue laws should be eliminated.

But then, that's not the point. In June 2000, Greenville city voters went to the polls and approved a Sunday alcohol sales referendum. They were assured by the parties sponsoring the vote that the relaxed alcohol sales would not include grocery stores or liquor stores. That message was carried repeatedly in this newspaper.

The intent of the 2000 vote should be respected. There's no reason to doubt that supporters of Greenville's referendum were telling the truth. State law had required two votes to allow Sunday sales of alcohol for both on-premise and off-premise consumption.

But then, in 2001, the attorney for Beaufort County asked Attorney General Charlie Condon's office to clarify whether two separate votes were required. The attorney general's office said one vote covered both types of Sunday alcohol sales, based on one of many changes the Legislature made in Act 415 in 1996.

This revised policy, reinforced by a recent ruling by the S.C. Revenue Department, will affect the cities of Greenville, Aiken, North Charleston and Edisto Beach, as well as Georgetown and Horry counties.

A Revenue Department spokesman told The State newspaper, "At first, we were concerned that voters would feel tricked, having voted for one thing and not the other. But we decided to go with the attorney general opinion and apply it across the board."

This is a significant change, and it will leave many voters feeling "tricked." Greenville city officials should explore their options for ensuring that the policy applied here reflects the expressed desire of city voters.