Wet-dry election: When will Oak Cliff be wet?

The lawsuit asking for voiding the election on Proposition 1 (sale of beer and wine in grocery and convenience stores) was filed on Friday.  Among the reasons stated as to why the election should be voided:  Because the valid signatures  on the petition were not properly certified prior to calling the election and because historically dry areas like Oak Cliff should have their votes counted separately from the city-wide vote.  Interesting points that the City of Dallas has disputed  for several months.

Another interesting point:  The transmittal letter to the district clerk states, in this election contest, that the district judges in Dallas County should be disqualified from hearing the case and requests a special judge (presumably from outside Dallas County) to be appointed to hear the case in Dallas County.  Stay tuned on that issue.

In the meantime and since no injunction was requested, TABC should be accepting applications.  In anticipation of permits being issued in the near future, some grocery stores are already re-modeling to put in coolers for beer and wine.

By |2011-02-18T17:44:05-05:00November 15th, 2010|Business, City Hall, Food and Drink, News, Wine|4 Comments

About the Author:

Scott Chase
Neighborhood blogger Scott Chase is an attorney and Stevens Park resident. Email editor@advocatemag.com.                                                                                        


  1. Scott Chase
    Scott Chase November 16, 2010 at 1:31 PM

    Jake, my understanding of Prop 2 is that it will do away with the restrictions that were on private clubs that forced them to pick up their own liquor. They will now be able to get regular delivery just as bars on the north side of the river. The state liquor laws have all sorts of weird restrictions depending on the particular permit that you have. Once a restaurant doesn’t need a private club permit, it is subject to different rules for an on-premises permit. I will double check that.

  2. Jake November 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM

    I know bars and restaurants have to travel across the river to get their alcohol and it doesn’t sound like prop 2 would change that would it? I’m guessing distributors would still be unable to drop their product off at restaurants under the passage of prop 2.

  3. Scott Chase
    Scott Chase November 15, 2010 at 3:47 PM

    A cynic would opine that the vote for Proposition 2 did not have the same economic result on liquor interests as the vote for Prop. 1. If Proposition 1 is upheld, the sale of wine and beer in grocery and convenience stores will result in economic harm to those outlets that previously had no competition. Wholesale distribution will also be affected. Prop. 2 did not have the same economic effect on retailers and distributors.

    I haven’t looked at the Election Code section cited in the transmittal letter, but there could be a provision in state law that avoids a potential conflict of interest by requiring a non-local judge would have to hear the case. I will post on that tomorrow.

  4. Granny November 15, 2010 at 3:36 PM

    So why didn’t they challenge the results of Prop 2 along with Prop 1? If “the valid signatures on the petition were not properly certified prior to calling the election …” on Prop 1, wouldn’t the same complaint be true for Prop 2? So far as I know, signatures for BOTH propositions were collected at the same time.

    And what’s the reason for requesting a special judge? Sounds like a real slap in the face to District Judges in Dallas County.

    Very confusing.

Comments are closed.