Editorial: Privatize liquor sales; veto bill, pass initiative

This summer Washingtonians will probably renew the debate over the nature of liquor sales, because another initiative has been filed that would privatize the sales and distribution of spirits.

Washington is one of 18 “control states,” meaning the state runs a gigantic liquor business, with about 900 workers and its own stores. (Beer and wine are given wider latitude and can be purchased at other outlets.) As with last year’s privatization measure, this one is backed by Costco, along with the Northwest Grocery Association and the Washington Restaurant Association.

But potentially complicating this debate is a nettlesome bill passed in the closing hours of the recent special legislative session. Under this measure, which awaits the signature of Gov. Chris Gregoire, the state would consider bids from private entities and then choose one of them to run the distribution system. Sales would remain in state hands. Tellingly, the bill carries an emergency clause that would block citizens from overturning it with a referendum.

First, there is no emergency when it comes to selling liquor. This looks to be another example of the Legislature abusing its power by lowering the bar for what constitutes urgent business. Unfortunately, the state Supreme Court has essentially decided to keep its distance, saying that if lawmakers declare an emergency, then it is one. Second, we fail to see significant merit in turning a government monopoly into a private one.

More importantly, we don’t believe the distribution or sale of liquor should continue to be a government function. We’ve long moved past the temperance era, when many of these restrictive laws originated. The liquor stores should be phased out and the warehouse and distribution network sold off. The state would still maintain its taxing, licensing and other regulatory functions, as is done in many other states.

It would have been better to tackle privatization in the Legislature, but that didn’t happen. Instead this half-baked bill that addresses only one-half of the state’s monopoly was adopted at the last minute.

But the public can still take a look at another voter initiative, if it garners enough signatures.

Last year’s bid, Initiative 1100, suffered from the confusing appearance of another liquor control measure. There were also concerns that small liquor stores would be popping up everywhere. So this time the measure limits licenses to stores that are at least 10,000 square feet, thereby keeping hard liquor out of gas stations and minimarts. An exception was added for rural areas that don’t have large stores.

But the best reason to adopt the initiative could be the potential revenue that could flow to the state, because the proponents of privatization have significantly increased the state’s take in both taxes and licensing fees. This is a much better deal than voters were faced with last year.

The governor should veto the Legislature’s bill and give voters a clear-eyed view of total privatization.