A Reason to Vote Yes on Initiative 1183

Initiative 1183, the most expensive initiative in Washington’s history, puts the state out of the liquor business. With so much money at stake and in a slow election season, citizens are being bombarded constantly by advertising from both sides, much of which either skirts the truth, makes little sense, or is guesswork as to what might happen if the initiative passes. Although I’m generally in favor of a smaller government footprint, I needed a better reason than simply eliminating what is obviously a nonessential service—one that Washington isn’t particularly good at—to vote for the initiative.

So what’s not to like? Only seven other states retain a monopoly on distributing and selling liquor. Why shouldn’t Washington follow the lead of most other states? I-1183 will bring in more money to state and local government. Since I rarely drink, the additional money will be coming from other people, not me. The increase in revenue is not just a claim by the proponents; it’s based on a fiscal analysis by the state’s Office of Financial Management. Under I-1183, it will be far more convenient to buy liquor and prices might even be lower. In the last few years momentum behind privatizing liquor sales has built. Even if I-1183 fails, the issue is not going away.

What bothers me the most is that the initiative is being bankrolled by Costco ($22 million so far) and other big retailers. The reason: with a few exceptions a store will need to have 10,000 square feet of retail space to get a liquor license. Sure they are playing by the rules that govern the initiative process, but should the players who stand to benefit the most be writing a law that will just about guarantee them big profits?

Actually in this case, perhaps they should, if only to save the embattled legislature the trouble. Last November voters said no to two pro-privatization initiatives. Costco learned from this rebuke and has written a better law this time. The Washington state legislature, perhaps reading the tea leaves, took a brief look at privatization during the 2011 session. But the effort started too late and was half-baked at best, concerning itself with selling off the distribution monopoly not retail sales.

Since the 2011-13 budget was passed in June, the state economy has continued to slide. The governor has called a special legislative session for late November to deal with an additional $2 billion budget shortfall. (This is on top of $4 billion in cuts already made.) In trying to reach consensus on what to cut, the legislature will be busy. At the same time they can expect intense lobbying from every group the state funds, from teachers to the corrections department. If I-1183 fails, there will be no time to write and debate a liquor privatization law during the special session.

That leaves the 2012 legislative session. Even if by then liquor privatization has failed three times at the ballot box, the legislature will still need to take on the issue. There’s too much money at stake not to. (Whatever its shortcomings, the I-1183 campaign has at least proved that.) By law next year’s session will only last 60 days. Could the legislature set aside partisan bickering and pass a liquor privatization law especially given the influence state employees have on many Democrats? Possibly, but only by taking time away from more important issues like funding education. Plus 2012 is an election year, so even if the legislature passes a liquor law, they might toss it back to the voters for approval anyway.

Saving work in Olympia and avoiding another vote next year might not be the best reason to vote yes for an initiative. But it’s my justification. Now if I could just write a media filter that would send all those I-1183 ads to the equivalent of a TV Junk folder.