For those interested, the case is
here. The brief for the injunction (anti-liquor law change) is
here. The response (pro-liquor law change) is
here.
First, an temporary injunction is only granted if 1) the requesting party has a reasonable probability of success, 2) the risk of injury/damage for not granting the injunction is greater than the risk of granting it, AND 3) it is in public interest.
The Retail Liquor Association of Oklahoma, or ReaL donkey Oo (tortured acronyms are fun), argued Equal Protection and Unconstitutionally Vague. Everyone always argues too vague, no fun there. The Equal Protection argument is more interesting.
Under equal protection the government cannot arbitrarily treat similarly situation groups differently for no good reason. Or, more technically, without a compelling governmental interest for protected classes, or, in this circumstance, at least a rational basis for doing so. Rational basis is a fairly easy standard for the government to reach...so they were fighting an uphill battle to start.
ReaL donkey Oo argued it violated Equal Protection by:
1) Limits the number of Retail Spirits Licenses (liquor stores) to 2, does not limited number of licenses for beer and wine vendors. I.e., QT can have 500 stores but Ranch Acres Liquor and spirits can only have 2. 2) Sales of non-liquor items limited to 20% of total sales for liquor stores, no limited for retail beer or wine stores. 3) Residency and entity type restrictions for liquor stores, none for beer and wine. and 4) Out of State Wholesaler contracts (not real clear on this one).
Unfortunately, all the Court had to find was find that they weren't entitled to an injunction under the three part test, or that the State had a rational basis for treating liquor sales different than beer or wine sales. Given our state's history of legislating morality, and of alcohol being such a vice, that isn't a stretch for the Court to find. In fact, we've been treating liquor stores differently for decades and I suspect they'd be even more upset if it was truly equal (fine, everyone sell whatever you want).
Not a frivolous argument, there are significant differences between groups that are both selling alcohol. But, if you classify the groups as liquor sellers, beer sellers, and wine sellers... no dice. Or if you say the government has a rational basis for treating liquor stores differently, no dice.
Predictably, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, or OK Attorney GraSP, argued the Court lacks jurisdiction (ballot challenges must be filed in OK Supreme Court), the challenge is not ripe (can't challenge unless approved by the People), and they should otherwise fail because 1) the Court has repeatedly upheld the right to treat persons in the alcohol industry different among classes, 2) they don't know what they are talking about, and 3) it isn't vague.
OK Attorney GraSP won the day (I think he's 3 for 42*). No injunction. Ballots print at the end of August. They have to be mailed to service members overseas sometime in September. And Alcohol progress marches on.
The actual ballot question will read:
PRELIMINARY BALLOT TITLE FOR STATE QUESTION No. 792
This measure repeals Article 28 Qf the Oklahoma Constitution and restructures the laws
governing alcoholic beverages through a new Article 28A and other laws the Legislature will
create if the measure passes.
The new Article 28A provides that with exceptions, a person or company can have an ownership
interest in only one area of the alcoholic beverage business-manufacturing, wholesaling, or
retailing. Some restrictions apply to the sales of manufacturers, brewers, winemakers, and
wholesalers. Subject to limitations, the Legislature may authorize direct shipments to consumers
of wine.
Retail locations like grocery stores may sell wine and beer. Liquor stores may sell products other
than alcoholic beverages in limited amounts.
The Legislature must create licenses for retail locations, liquor stores, and places serving
alcoholic beverages and may create other licenses. Certain licensees must meet residency
requirements. Felons cannot be licensees.
The Legislature must designate days and hours when alcoholic beverages may be sold and may
impose taxes on sales. Municipalities may levy an occupation tax. If authorized, a state lodge
may sell individual alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption but no other state
involvement in the alcoholic beverage business is allowed.
With one exception, the measure will take effect October 1,2018.
*not an official tally, a totally made up number actually.