Battle Could Set Precedent in More Ways Than One


The liquor store in West Olympia is a rarity in the state of Washington: Open on Sunday!

By Erik Smith

Staff writer/ Washington State Wire

OLYMPIA, July 26.—Secretary of State Sam Reed is expected to certify Initiative 1105 for the ballot today, placing two initiatives on the ballot that deal with the same subject, and possibly creating an enormous headache for state officials and lawyers alike.

            Initiative 1105 would shutter the state’s liquor stores and allow hard-liquor sales in private stores, as is done in California and 31 other “open” states. Initiative 1100, already certified for the ballot, would do the same thing.

            And that leaves four months for people to wonder: What if both pass?

            State elections officials announced late Friday that Initiative 1105, entirely backed by two liquor distributors, had easily qualified for the ballot after submitting 359,525 signatures. Only 241,000 were required, and a random check of three percent of the signatures submitted showed that enough of them were valid for the measure to qualify. The rejection rate was 18.55 percent.

            The Soundalikes That Aren’t

If you read the ballot titles for both, you’ll be hard-pressed to tell the difference. That’s because the state attorney general’s office and the courts evaluate each measure independently, and they don’t aim to make a comparison.

So both ballot titles hit on the most obvious point – the elimination of the state liquor store system – and they ignore the point that caused the financial backers of the two initiatives to spend millions of dollars to run their paid signature drives. One measure favors big retailers; the other preserves a business monopoly for liquor distributors that exists in some form in every state of the union.

Initaitive 1100, backed by Costco stores at a cost of about $1 million, would for the first time allow retailers to purchase hard liquor, beer and wine directly from manufacturers.  

            Initiative 1105 was the distributors’ response – the campaign kicked into gear only after Costco announced its support for the other. That measure would require retailers to purchase through distributors and would essentially establish the same system in Washington that exists in the 32 “open” states. That late-starting signature drive cost about $2 million and was entirely supported by Young’s Market Co. of Los Angeles and The Odom Corp. of Bellevue, a partner of Southern Wines and Spirits, the nation’s largest liquor distributor.

            There are differences in the taxation structures imposed by the two initiatives. But while the two campaigns are likely to focus on those differences, they have a big point in common. Both would repeal the state’s markup on booze, which is the main reason hard liquor costs more in Washington than in other states.

            What if Both Pass?

            So what happens if voters say yes to both? Dave Ammons, spokesman for the secretary of state’s office, has been trying to answer that one ever since it became clear that both sides were mounting serious campaigns. The question never has come before Washington courts before, though it’s almost happened at least three times. The answer is so murky that the only thing for sure is that the courts have to decide.

            There are two ways that it might go. The courts might decide that where the two initiatives conflict, the initiative that got the most votes prevails.

            Or they might decide that the voters intended to pass both measures and that both carry equal weight. In which case it might come down to the actual wording and effect of the measure.

            If it’s the latter case, Initiative 1100 would prevail. That’s because Initiative 1105 modifies the statutes on the books, while 1100 wipes them clean away and replaces them with new ones.

            Washington courts have never had a chance to rule on the subject, because voters have never approved two conflicting ballot measures on the same subject. Certainly they’ve had the chance – it’s just never played out that way.

In 1988, they faced a pair of competing environmental cleanup measures, initiatives 97-A and 97-B. They wound up approving only one of them, I-97-A, which was backed by environmental groups – and which launched the state’s Model Toxics Control Act.

            In 1993, they had a choice of two spending-limit measures, initiatives 601 and 602, and approved only I-601.

            And in 2005, trial lawyers and insurance companies carried out a duel with conflicting ballot measures on malpractice reform. But after watching millions of dollars of worth of television advertising, Washington voters threw up their hands and rejected both I-330 and I-336.