Current Measure to Sell Alcohol in Lincoln is Incorrect, County Says Darren Doyle, story:
Edmonson County Attorney Adam Turner reported at this evening's Edmonson County Fiscal Court meeting that the Kentucky Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) has just informed him that no licenses will be granted to sell alcohol in the Lincoln District, even if the measure to make the precinct wet is passed in next week's upcoming vote. Turner said when an earlier attempt by some residents to petition for a countywide wet/dry vote failed, another attempt by local business owner Tony Mello to push for a precinct vote was then discussed. "I think I advised then, to the Fiscal Court that there were two different interpretations of the law, where you could do a straight up-down ballot measure for a precinct/territory, and the other interpretation was that you couldn't, unless it was for a golf course, a small farm winery, or distillery, or, like any other small, local option. At that point, we didn't get a whole lot of feedback, just repeating interpretations of the law, and so I advised just to put it on the ballot, so it got on the ballot." After signatures were gathered by those in favor of the measure in the precinct, the County Clerk's Office was tasked to verify the petition signatures. Judge/Executive Scott Lindsey's Office then presented it to County Attorney Adam Turner's Office, who also reviewed and determined it was legally acceptable. Following, Judge Lindsey's office then sent an order to the Clerk's Office for the option to be officially added to the ballot for the upcoming election, which states, "Are you in favor of the sale of alcoholic beverages in the Lincoln Precinct (E101) of Edmonson County, Kentucky?" Turner then said after it appeared on the ballot, the ABC contacted his office, which was last week, along with the Judge/Executive's Office and advised them that even if the vote passed, no licenses or permits would be issued to sell alcohol in the district. After the meeting, we spoke with County Attorney Turner and asked him for more details as to why the ABC made their decision. "These are passed by local options, not precincts," he told the Edmonson Voice. "After the countywide measure failed, Tony Mello wanted to just do one for Lincoln and that's when I started looking into whether or not we could just pass a flat one for a precinct." Turner said he spoke with an official from the Kentucky Association of Counties whose interpretation was for a precinct measure, but Turner's own interpretation was in alignment with the current ABC decision, which was specific to a local territory, such as a golf course, distillery, or winery. Other options also include an incorporated city within a dry county. He said he received no further guidance from any other state officials and decided to move forward with other local officials to allow the vote on the ballot. "When ABC found out it was on the ballot, they called me and said we can't do that and they would essentially not give anyone a permit or license to sell alcohol," he said. When asked what measures could local vendors take to obtain a permit in the event that the vote still goes wet, Turner said he was told ABC would send him information on the "process to do what we want to accomplish" under the correct circumstances, however, he said he had not currently received any further info. County Clerk Kevin Alexander told the audience tonight that it was important to understand that the measure will still be on the ballot and that Lincoln will still either remain dry or will turn wet, despite the fact no licenses will currently be issued, insinuating to the notion that something could come of it later, in the event the precinct becomes wet. "Whether you support it or oppose it, it will still be on the ballot, and you should still get out and vote your choice," Alexander said.
4 Comments
Charles Peck
5/13/2024 09:55:10 pm
I read the article and I believe the response by the ABC and the County Attorney to be incorrect. The Statute that mentions a local option, KRS 242.020 Petition for election, states that the petition must have signatures of 25% of the territory electors who voted in the last preceding general election. So, if territory is supposed to mean golf course, racetrack, etc. then the petition would contain no names because those "territories" aren't residences, but businesses with no electors. The statute clearly states that the petition must contain "Are you in favor of the sale of alcoholic beverages in (name of territory)?" Territory is clearly referring to the area/precinct and not a business, as the statute states that the election should be held in the territory in which the local option is being voted on, not at a business, especially since the vote is being held during a general election.
Reply
Mike Embry
5/14/2024 08:14:44 am
Bro relax
Reply
Charles Peck
5/14/2024 12:52:41 pm
Relax about what? You have a problem with any of the information that I provided? Only thing that was my opinion was stating that I believe the ABC and the County Attorney are incorrect in their "interpretation" of KRS 242.XXX. I even provided the specific laws related to the issue. I didn't even come down on one side or the other, just that if the voters of Lincoln decide that they want alcoholic beverages sold in their district/territory, they should be allowed to do so, as long as all laws are observed. Thank you and have a good day, bro!
Mike embry
5/14/2024 02:22:44 pm
You a lawyer now? lol that's the problem with everybody on the internet. all experts and no chill. typed a whole page on how you see the law lol. guess we all can sleep easy now
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
July 2024
|