No alcohol until 6 p.m.

November 4, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
I expected a long wait to vote at my precinct today. I brought my iPod, wore comfortable shoes, and prepared to wait in line for an hour or more. When at 7 a.m. I pulled up to the church where I vote, there was no line wrapped around the door. I was done in less than 10 minutes.

But I do know some people had to wait a lot longer today to vote, and after standing in line for an hour or more, they may want to have an adult beverage.

They’ll just have to wait until 6 p.m.

Like our restrictions on alcohol sales on Sunday, Indiana is one of a handful of states that have laws on the books banning some form of alcohol sales on Election Day. There are also states that allow local ordinances to be enacted to restrict alcohol sales on Election Day.

Restricting alcohol sales hurts liquor stores’ business, as well as restaurants and bars. Other businesses aren’t forced to close on Election Day. Yes, people are able to wait until 6 p.m. to purchase a bottle of wine or have a beer with dinner, but what’s the rationale behind them having to wait?

If an adult wants to have a drink at lunch or an early dinner, they should be able to have a drink (unless of course, it will impair their driving or their employers have restrictions). I’ve read the ban dates back to when some polling places were also bars and taverns.

Is the fear people will drink too much before they vote? Will there be more drinking and driving on Election Day than other days if alcohol sales are allowed?

I’ve made the argument in this blog that our legislators need to overturn the Sunday liquor laws. While they are at it, they should remove the Election Day restriction, too.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • I have not been a fan of limitations on liquor sales, but election day is the only day where any logic can be made.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT