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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT