A local option alcohol law permits jurisdictions within a state to decide its own policy. Whether or not to prohibit the sale of one or more forms of alcoholic beverage. Local voter approval is virtually always required.

           Overview

I.   Local Option Background

II.  Case Study: Local Option

III. After Repeal

IV.  Dry Towns Today

An example is Texas law. It permits jurisdictions as small as a justice of the peace district to vote on alcohol sales.

They can choose to prohibit the sale of all alcohol. Can choose to allow the sale of beer, wine and spirits (liquor) for both on- and off-site drinking. They can choose almost anything in between. Can also decide whether to allow sales in convenience or grocery stores. In liquor stores, in bars, and/or in restaurants.

If a local decision is made in any state to prohibit the sale of one form, it is usually spirits. This is based on an old myth. That spirits are more alcoholic.

In reality, standard drinks of beer, dinner wine and spirits all have the same amount of pure alcohol. It’s 0.6 of an ounce of pure . Thus a beer has the same amount of pure alcohol as a shot of whiskey. So a breath tester can’t tell them apart.

I. Local Option Background

In 1833, Maine established the first local option law for alcohol. Such laws grew in popularity. By the late 1840s, 12 states and territories had approved them. During the 1880s 15 states approved local option laws. As time passed, more and more states joined the movement.

Letting local areas decide the matter of prohibition was a strategy used by temperance activists. It was much easier to obtain prohibition in a rural area or town than state-wide.

Cities tended to resist prohibition. One reason was their large population of recent immigrants. Catholics, Jews, Greeks, Spaniards, Portuguese and many others considered drinking an important part of their cultures. Indeed, prohibition was part of a cultural war against the newest wave of immigrants.

II. Case Study:  Local Option

New York City stood as a symbol of wet (anti-prohibition) strength. Bishop James Cannon was a major temperance leader. He was speaking against the Catholic governor of New York, Al Smith. He told voters that Smith wanted

“the Italians, the Sicilians, the Poles, and Russian Jews. That kind has given us a stomach ache. We have been unable to assimilate such people in our national life, so we shut the door on them. But Smith says ‘give me that kind of people.’ He wants the kind of dirty people you find today on the sidewalks of New York.”¹

The Anti-Saloon League sent one of its most effective leaders, William H. Anderson, to New York. His goal was to make the entire state dry. One of his first actions was to get a local option law passed. Then, beginning with rural areas and small towns, he worked to bring prohibition ever closer to the Big Apple. Before he could succeed in making the City dry, National Prohibition  (1920-1933) went into effect.

III. After Repeal

The Repeal of National Prohibition was in 1933. Some states continued their own state-wide alcohol prohibition. Other states granted counties and municipalities local option. They could decide whether or not to be dry.

After Repeal, 39% of the US population continued living under prohibition. Currently, 10% of U.S. counties still maintain a ban on some or all forms of alcohol.

Today, some states prohibit local option about alcohol sales. Following are these states.

• • AL
  • HI
  • IL
  • IN
  • IA
  • MD
  • MO
  • NE
  • NV (except for one rural grandfathered). jurisdictions)
  • ND
  • OK
  • OR
  • PA
  • SC
  • UT
  • WY

All other states permit local option about the matter. Over time, the number of dry counties, townships, and municipalities has dropped greatly. In local option votes, it is usually the “wets” who win. But in many cases, the “drys” prevail, even after repeated votes.

Wet Support and Opposition

Those who start a local vote tend to business people. Often the chamber of commerce promotes the election. Supporters typically argue that prohibition hampers economic growth. If wet, the area will prosper. And will no longer lose profits, taxes, and employment to wet areas.

Those who oppose being wet are almost always religious leaders and their followers. They argue that permitting alcohol sales will lead to topless bars, increased crime, and prostitution. Also to immorality, violence, and driving while intoxicated.

Research provides little support for either side. Places that permit alcohol sales obtain some economic benefit. But they don’t suddenly boom as a result. Nor do they experience rising crime, violence, or other problems.

In fact, dry counties have alcohol crashes related to alcohol than wet counties. That’s after adjusting for population. See here and here for why they do.

IV. Dry townships and municipalities (MUN) today

For a list of counties that are dry, visit Dry Counties.

The following is a listing of dry townships, justice of the peace districts, and municipalities.

AL

Of 460 MUN, 56 (12%) are wet. NOTE: There are so few wet MUNs that they, rather than the dry ones, are listed below. For county-level prohibition, see Dry Counties.

AK

AR

For county-level prohibition, see  Dry Counties.

FL

See  Dry Counties.

KS

See  Dry Counties.

KY

See  Dry Counties.

IL

Dry MUN (1)

1. South Holland

MA

Dry Townships (8)

1. Alford
2. Chilmark
3. Dunstable
4. Gosnold
5. Hawley
6. Montgomery
7. Mount Washington
8. Westhampton

MI

MN

Dry MUN (1)

1. Lakeside

MS

MS is dry by default. A referendum must be passed to permit alcohol sales within a local jurisdiction. A majority are dry. There are too many to list.  For county-level prohibition in MS, see Dry Counties.

NV

Dry MUN (1)

1. Panaca

NH

Dry MUN (3)

1. Ellsworth
2. Millsfield
3. Monroe

NJ

NY

OH (3)

1. Albany
2. Porter township
3. Portsmouth

PA

Almost 700 local governments in the state are dry or partially dry. That’s 27% of the local areas. There are too many to list here.

TX

For prohibition at the county-wide level, see  Dry Counties.

VA

See  Dry Counties.

WI

Dry MUN (2)

1. Ephriam
2. Sparta

Resources

Endnote for Local Option

1. Winkler, J. What we say, what we do. Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church.

Notes

Know of any changes? If so, please contact hansondj [at sign] potsdam [dot] edu. And thank you for your help!

At this point, you much more about local option alcohol laws than most people!