Once again, Maryland legislators are seeking to lift the state’s ban on selling beer and wine in grocery stores and other retail outlets that sell food, and the current effort could involve putting the measure on the ballot in November to allow the state’s voters to make the final decision.
Delegate Lily Qi (D-Montgomery) and Senator Cory McCray (D-Baltimore) have filed bills in their respective chambers in the Maryland House of Delegates on a referendum to lift Maryland’s blanket ban on beer and wine sales in grocery stores in the form of an amendment to the state’s constitution.
In 1978, Maryland enacted a law that protected liquor stores from competition from chains by only awarding one license per person and restricting licenses so they could only be awarded to Maryland residents. Since then, shoppers in Maryland have been unable to purchase beer and wine in grocery stores (with some exceptions as a few dozen chain stores were grandfathered in at the time). Today, Maryland is one of only three states that don’t allow beer to be sold in grocery stores and one of only 11 that don’t permit wine sales.
Recent polls show that many state residents are in favor of the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores. Marylanders for Better Beer and Wine Laws (MBBWL), a group that has been working on reforming alcohol laws since 2005, released a 2020 poll that found Maryland residents favor legalizing chain store alcohol sales by a 2-1 margin. Survey respondents cited greater convenience followed by lower prices as their top reasons for supporting this change. The survey found 71 percent of Marylanders support beer in chain stores and 73 percent support wine in chain stores.
The Maryland Retailers Association (MRA) commissioned a January 2022 Gonzales Maryland Poll on the topic which said three-quarters of Maryland voters continue to favor adopting a law in Maryland to permit grocery stores to sell beer and wine. Statewide, 72 percent support allowing grocery stores to sell beer and wine (44 percent “strongly support” and 28 percent “somewhat support”), while 22 percent are opposed to allowing grocery stores to sell beer and wine (13 percent “strongly oppose” and 9 percent “somewhat oppose”), with 6 percent offering no opinion.
At an MRA breakfast held last November which was attended by many of the region’s supermarket operators, association president Cailey Locklear assured the group that making alcohol sales at grocery stores a reality is one of the most pressing issues for her organization.
In 2020, MD Alcohol Choice commissioned an analysis study to determine the potential economic effects of allowing Marylanders to choose where to buy their alcohol. The study found that on average, consumers go to the grocery store at least once a week if not more – the state’s restrictions on beer and wine sales at these stores limit taxable sales, costing the state jobs and tax revenues. The economic analysis determined that allowing beer and wine to be sold in additional food retailers would increase overall sales in Maryland by $192.8 million, create 760 new jobs, and bring in $24.1 million in additional tax revenues.
Qi and McCray worked together on a similar bill in the 2021 General Assembly session. That bill, which Qi ultimately withdrew after a negative vote in the House Alcoholic Beverages Subcommittee, would have allowed supermarket operators who opened and operated stores in food deserts to sell beer and wine – as long they also offered fresh food options – as a means of incentivizing them to operate in higher-need areas.
The current proposal does not include the same food desert incentives. However, the amendment does contain language that would require liquor boards to prioritize licenses for stores “located in geographic areas that have a demonstrated lack of affordable healthy food options.”
If the amendment does make it to the ballot in November and voters approve it, regulations and policies related to the amendment would have to be worked out by the General Assembly and liquor boards at a later date. If voters do approve the amendment, grocers will be able to get beer and wine licenses beginning July 1, 2024, giving lawmakers nearly two years to work out the details.
A house hearing on the current proposed legislation was held February 28. Sarah Price, legislative and membership associate at MRA, told us that there were many opponents on hand to be heard at the virtual meeting, but there were also several consumers who testified in favor of the measure. A hearing in the Senate is scheduled to be held, in person, at Food World’s presstime on March 4. Price expects one or two of the same people who testified in favor of the measure in the House she expects to appear at the Senate hearing.
Price is cautious when speaking about the referendum’s potential for success but feels that each time legislation like this is put forth it means “more people are talking about it” and each attempt gathers more momentum.
A supermarket executive we spoke to said of the proposed referendum, “It’s exciting to think that we could get a statewide bill to go to referendum, the strategy was smart. But, I see the chances of it happening as 50/50 at best; it’s going to be an uphill battle. If it passes through the House, that will be a big deal.” However, he says the prospects in the Senate don’t look good.
Adam Borden, president of MBBWL, said, “It’s clear that there’s a building momentum in and outside Annapolis for this change, which is evidenced by the number of bills that have been introduced to bring Maryland into the modern economy. Whether it happens this year or next, it’s clear that the momentum is gaining force. We have no doubt that Marylanders will vote for this referendum, the question is, when will they have the chance to do so?”
While a statewide bill may not seem likely this year, MRA’s Price, the supermarket executive we spoke to, and Borden all pointed to local legislation that has been put forth in Baltimore City as well as Montgomery and Prince George’s counties. This year, McCray, the co-sponsor of the statewide referendum legislation, has also put forth a Senate bill that would allow Baltimore City to issue alcohol licenses for the sale of beer and wine to a grocery store, chain store, supermarket or discount house. That bill has been referred to committee. Similar efforts have been made in Prince George’s and Montgomery counties, but so far nothing has been written into law. Delegate Regina Boyce (D-Baltimore) has issued a similar bill that is also currently referred to committee.
Ironically, last month the House of Delegates passed bills to put a referendum for marijuana legalization on the state’s 2022 ballot and set initial rules if voters approve the reform in November. Price cited the success of that legislation while the same lawmakers seemed poised to rebuke the alcohol legislation put forward by Qi and McCray and said, “it seems hypocritical.” The supermarket executive we spoke to echoed that sentiment.
In other Maryland legislative news, MRA recently participated in a workgroup organized by the attorney general to discuss and try to address a proposed price gouging bill currently being considered in both the state House and Senate by Senators Clarence Lam (D-Dist. 12) and Pam Beidle (D-Dist. 32) and Delegate Pam Queen (D-Mont.). The proposal would prohibit the sale of an essential good or service during a state of emergency, and 90 days after the state of emergency is lifted, for a price of 10 percent more than the highest price the goods or services were 60 days before the state of emergency declaration and four days before the state of emergency. The legislation lists specific categories of goods and services that would be covered by the law, including food, fuel, water and ice, medicine, and several others.
During a Senate hearing in late February, MRA’s Price questioned what the process of handling complaints would be. “There are so many different things that impact prices when there is a state of emergency,” she told us. “It’s not cut and dried, there are so many factors in play.” The Senate finance chair Delores Kelley (D-Baltimore Co.) suggested a workgroup to address these concerns and MRA agreed to participate upon receiving in invitation from the attorney general’s office.
MRA urged the AG to consider making the following changes to the bill to address their concerns:
- Remove the list of impacted products/services from the bill and simply authorize the governor to indicate the items that would be relevant to a current state of emergency;
- Shorten the 90-day period after the end of the state of emergency impacting prices for construction or home improvement products;
- Change the 60/4 day lookback period before a state of emergency for more clarity;
- Remove the right of private action.
Price said that MRA received “a lot of pushback” from the AG staff to these requests. They particularly feel strongly about keeping the list of impacted products in the bill, though they said they would be open to looking at other state statutes that didn’t include a specific list of items.”
However, regarding the right of private action, Price said the AG’s staff shut down requests to remove it because this right is generally included under consumer protection.
The supermarket executive we spoke to about the beer and wine legislation also commented on the price gouging bill under consideration. He noted that one of his primary concerns about the legislation is that there is only a 21-day window for a business to mount its defense once a complaint has been put forth to the AG’s office.
Currently, the bill is still in committee and must be passed to the full chamber by March 21 in order to proceed.