Churches prevail over liquor stores mark 2003 legislative highlights
Kerry K Messer
December 16, 2003
Ending in 1933 with the passage of the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, official prohibition along with its debates, politics, and saloon confrontations, provides us with one of our nations most colorful chapters in history. Only recently have I become aware of some of the stories involving ‘revenuers’ and the old still that used to draw crowds to our barnyard. (Prior ownership.) In those days such ‘social gatherings’ and ‘barn dances’ were common.
Also common in those days was the healthy respect the culture had for the church. So in the same year prohibition ended, Missouri, as did most states, adopted a host of restrictions and guidelines in an attempt to keep the liquor industry bridled once the corral gates were opened.
Over the next few years a series of bills adopted by the state legislature created strict liquor controls including a 100-foot buffer between locations selling alcohol and churches or schools (1935). This statewide prohibition against liquor licenses remained in effect for more than 55 years.
In 1982, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that a law similar to Missouri ’s 100-foot buffer was unconstitutional under the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. Both state’s laws contained a provision which allowed the impacted church or school to waive the prohibition and thereby clear the way for an establishment to be licensed to sell alcohol. Using the same modernist suppositions that were used to toss Bible reading and prayer out of schools, the court invalidated this law also. Allowing churches an option to accept alcohol sales within a distance less than the stated standard, violated their revised understanding of the “separation of church and state!”
In 1991, the Cole County Circuit Court in Jefferson City , agreed with Massachusetts. Allowing churches to waive their statutory protection from adjacent liquor sales meant those same churches could deny government issued liquor licenses by refusing to agree to the issuance of the license. This spin on the law’s meaning was found in violation of “church and state separation” for Missouri also.
Fast forward to 2003. The Missouri Division of Liquor Control requests lawmakers to clean up ‘obsolete’ laws on liquor control. After a dozen years of granting liquor licenses with no regard to bars, taverns, or other alcohol sales proximity to churches or schools, no one knows how many license holders are now within the 100-foot boundary. So the division recruits House and Senate members to introduce their recommendations, including the total elimination of the 100-foot law.
As both House and Senate bills advanced early in the legislative process, it became obvious these bills were politically greased and one would likely end up on Gov. Holden’s desk. With the annual erosion of liquor controls, I, along with a handful of concerned lawmakers, feared we would lose yet another cultural standard. But this time a little research and a lot of long hours of work turned the tide.
Working with key committee members I was able to redraft the senate version of the bill. This new version surgically removed only that portion of the law which allowed churches and schools to waive their protective buffer. This move would not only contradict the division’s agenda but would draw fire from the entire liquor industry by revalidating the old buffer rule. Selling this idea to a majority of 197 lawmakers, including some very important members who have no predisposition to oppose liquor sales proved to be a significant battle.
Throughout the session the battlefront reciprocated several times between the position of the liquor industry and that of protecting churches. With thanks to the Missouri Baptist Convention, Christian Life Commission, which weighed in to support the newer approach, we were able to hold the line and pass the revised provision.
By passing this provision Missouri has now reestablished the 100-foot standard after it sat idle for 10 years.
Those liquor licenses issued during that time remain in effect but no further exceptions can be made due to the removal of church or school waiver rights.
In other areas of interest to Missouri Baptists, the 2003 Missouri General Assembly approved two pro-life and bioethics bills. The widely praised 24 hour abortion waiting period and a bill prohibiting public funding of human cloning research passed. The later includes a ban against research involving aborted baby parts or any infant tissue which places the infant at risk of losing their life.
In recent years, the expansion of state sponsored gambling has been arrested, or at least slowed to a crawl. This year was no exception. Attacks against the $500 loss limit were numerous yet unsuccessful and bills advocating two new types of gambling venues were rejected.
New tools to fight child pornography were adopted this year, as well as new laws to help protect Missourians from internet pornography spam. Two more bills became law addressing public disclosure of sexual predators.
Three pieces of legislation were accepted this year protecting the confidentiality of Social Security Numbers (SSNs). While courts can require disclosure of SSNs, various public records can no longer contain them involuntarily. County recorders use of a person’s SSN has been limited. And one of the new laws prohibit any person or entity from publicly displaying someone else’s SSN or requiring an individual to send their SSN over the internet without guaranteeing encryption or other security.
Additionally, a four-year struggle to pass a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) ended when the governor signed the bill into law this past summer. This raises the level of protection for religious freedom in relationship to government interference.
With the Christian Life Commission as a direct ally in the upcoming 2004 legislative session, Missouri Baptists can expect continued reports and a positive presence in the state capitol. (Kerry K. Messer is president of the Missouri Family Network, an organization dedicated to defending pro-family issues. He is a registered lobbyist with the State of Missouri and represents the Christian Life Commission of the MBC within the Missouri General Assembly.)