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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT