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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT