In contrast to the ambitious agenda sweeping through the DFL-controlled House and Senate, there is one bill with broad public interest that will not even receive a hearing before the Minnesota Legislature: legalizing the sale of wine and strong beer in grocery stores.
The DFL leaders of the two commerce committees with jurisdiction over liquor laws — Sen. Matt Klein and Rep. Zack Stephenson — say they will not hear bills to allow groceries and convenience stores to sell beer and wine.
“We have a number of big issues to talk about this year,” Stephenson said, alluding to other bills he is sponsoring on recreational marijuana and sports betting. “We just had a really significant liquor bill last year. So I don’t expect to do a significant liquor bill this year.”
Klein referenced an agreement among liquor industry players — absent the grocers and convenience stores — that said there would be a five-year moratorium on further changes to liquor law.
Since it’s my first year (as chair), I’m going to honor that agreement for now, for this year in any case,” Klein said. “Historically in Minnesota, the issues around distribution and sales of alcohol are extremely fraught. There are a lot of people with a lot of investment in mom and pop liquor stores, distributors, retailers, Teamsters who deliver the product and everyone has a very strong opinion about how this balance is maintained.
“That said, I’m receptive to the high level of interest that Minnesotans have about this stuff and the desires they have about expanding access to alcohol,” the Mendota Heights DFLer said.
That agreement was controversial in 2022 because it suggested non-legislators were controlling the process. A contract of sorts was leaked that appeared to be holding the industry to a legally enforceable agreement. Stephenson said then the agreement didn’t bind the Legislature. This year, he said it has less to do with his stance on further changes than the routine patterns of legislation.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan[/image_credit][image_caption]The DFL leaders of the two commerce committees with jurisdiction over liquor laws — Sen. Matt Klein and Rep. Zack Stephenson — say they will not hear bills to allow groceries and convenience stores to sell beer and wine.[/image_caption]
There has been a rule of five of late. It was 2011 when the Legislature passed the so-called Surly Bill, named after the brewer, which allowed for the sale of beer on site in taprooms. And it was 2017 when the Legislature finally allowed private and municipal liquor stores to open on Sundays.
Five years after that came the deal between key and formerly warring segments of the alcohol business in Minnesota — the so-called Free the Growler bill — that included an agreement that none of the parties will return to the Legislature to significantly change Minnesota liquor laws for … five years.
Grocery stores were not part of that agreement, nor were their representatives part of the negotiations that led to a law last year that expanded the products and quantities craft brewers and distillers could sell. Liquor stores, many small and owned by families leading to the label “mom and pop stores,” won the requirement that stores be allowed to sell more craft products. But the big gain was the five-year deal. That gave members of the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association and the municipally owned stores peace of mind that they wouldn’t have to fight against changes such as allowing store owners to have more than one store per municipality and, especially, beer and wine sales in grocery stores.
While that agreement didn’t — and couldn’t — bind legislators, a bill opposed by the craft industry, the liquor stores, the distributors and the Teamsters would have a difficult time passing either chamber.
Not that some lawmakers aren’t trying.
Rep. Kurt Daudt, a Republican from Crown, is the lead sponsor on two measures: House File 574 would legalize the sale of strong beer and wine in groceries and convenience stores, and House File 1848 would place the same issue on the 2024 state ballot. Voters would be asked: “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to permit the sale of wine and beer in grocery stores, convenience stores and other food retailers, in a manner prescribed by law?”
[image_caption]Rep. Kurt Daudt[/image_caption]
Daudt said the constitutional amendment route could allow lawmakers to vote yes as a way of letting voters make the decision. It would also bypass Gov. Tim Walz, as a governor’s signature is not required for a constitutional amendment, just a simple majority of the House and Senate plus a majority of those voting in the 2024 general election.
“If the voters vote for it, then it’s in the constitution,” he said.
Describing what grocery stores can sell via the constitution might sound odd, both alcohol Prohibition in 1919 and the lifting of that ban on the manufacture and sale of alcohol in 1933 were both done via amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
As to the so-called “peace in the valley” deal last session and the informal moratorium on major changes, Daudt said he thought it was “pretty bad form” and something he’d not seen in his seven terms in the House.
“This is going to happen eventually,” Daudt said of grocery sales of wine and strong beer. “They’re not going to be able to hold it off forever. “Probably not this year. But I don’t think it’s going to be five years from now. I would say in the next two-to-three years it changes.”
Currently, grocery and convenience stores can sell beer, but it can only have lower-alcohol content: 3.2 percent alcohol by weight or 4 percent alcohol by volume. Minnesota is the last state that has laws that create a need for 3.2 beer. In addition, grocery stores can apply for liquor store licenses and many do. The licensed beverage group estimates there are 210 grocery stores, including many of the large grocery chains, that have liquor stores. By law, they must be separate from the grocery store and are limited to having only one within any local jurisdiction.
“These liquor stores have proved that no new laws are needed that would greatly increase the number of outlets for alcohol in Minnesota,” the association says in its opposition paper.
Legislating by constitutional amendment is a particularly ridiculous idea, and it does not surprise me that Rep. Daudt would be behind such a measure.
If grocery stores were ever allowed to sell liquor, I suspect that most of them would end up carrying just a few better-selling brands. Craft beers and the distilled spirits being turned out by craft distillers would be on offer in only the largest stores. Your local grocer would have a cooler with Bud Light and Blue Moon, and a shelf or two of Windsor and Franzia.
Of course, that type of market is what keeps most Mom and Pop stores operating. Good bye to the local store, with staff who could make a recommendation when asked.
I see where your concern is coming from, but considering 46 other states sell alcohol in grocery stores, there’s an opportunity to look at the evidence. You can buy craft beer and spirits in those grocery stores, and small liquor stores still thrive. It’s not like Minnesota selling alcohol in grocery stores would be a first-of-its-kind experiment or anything.
I think as long as personalized recommendations have value for customers, smaller liquor/wine shops will be around.
But I agree – this issue does not rise to the level of constitutional amendment.
For me to agree on anything with a boonies Republican, it would have to be about alcohol. Ask these guys about marijuana and all of a sudden they’re not so pro-business. Notice that?
But look at the rush to get that POT Head bill passed, but then all those DFL legslators need to find an easy supply source for their life long habits and can breath easier not having to commit a crime each time they buy their weed. Don’t forget you can’t smoke in MN in any of the places listed below. What will these pot head legislators do when in session?? Oh yes they already provided for that with gummies that look just like candy and they can carry them in their pockets and purses and even share with their constituents. These are your legislators, aren’t you really really proud of them???
Where is smoking prohibited?
Smoking is prohibited in virtually all indoor public places and indoor places of employment, including:
Bars, restaurants, and private clubs
Office and industrial workspaces
Retail stores
Common areas of rental apartment buildings, hotels and motels
Public transportation, including taxis
Work vehicles, if more than one person is present
Home offices with more than one on-site employees, or used as a place to meet or deal with customers—during work hours
Public and private schools, educational facilities
Auditoriums, arenas, meeting rooms
Day care premises
Health care facilities and clinics
This article wasn’t about smoking.
MN tries to project an image of a liberal, progressive state, but continues to drag along many archaic laws. It taxes social security, it props up a dysfunctional liquor sales model and it allows consumers to be restricted from buying a vehicle on Sunday.
These legislators do not represent the people who voted for them. They enable restrictive business interests.
One of these things is not like the other. I don’t know why folks try to shoehorn the social security tax issue into other things, but it always bears stating that it is a tax on wealthier Minnesotans. Beyond that, I agree.
There are already plenty of big stores that have “separate” liquor stores in virtually the same building, and the smaller liquor stores are still around. Let’s face it, this Minnesota obsession with micromanaging businesses in weird ways that other states don’t is outdated and needs to be shown the door.
Particularly in out-state, buying 3.2 beer at a grocery store or stop-and-rob is pretty popular. I’m in favor of the majority party allowing this to pass. A significant increase in drunk driving or impaired accidents doesn’t seem imminent. The parental instincts of the majority party is perceived as over-reach by lots and lots of Minnesotans. What I’d encourage grocers to do is to open a liquor store adjacent to the grocery store, so it’s still a one-stop for beer and wine. This is done successfully in Wisconsin.
Hate to break it to you, opposition to grocery store booze has historically been bipartisan. Indeed, it could pass even now should there be enough Republican support to compel it.
In our mostly-capitalistic consumer economy, the consumer is supposed to be king. I wish no ill will on small liquor stores, but it’s ridiculous in this day and age to restrict beer and wine to those retail outlets. Times change. Economies and societies evolve. There’s a reason the Elevator Operators Union and the Buggy Whip Manufacturers Guild aren’t around anymore.
Moderate beer and wine consumption can be a normal, everyday family tradition, especially at meals. I have to wonder if STIGMATIZING the moderate use of alcohol by restricting availability is actually a contributor to alcohol abuse. As long as alcohol is legal and accepted, young people need to see moderate use routinely demonstrated. With those positive examples, maybe they’d be less inclined toward alcohol use disorders.
According to a 2021 state auditor report, 177 cities run 212 municipal liquor stores. The total profit was $30 million.
That’s $30 million going into city coffers, not Mom & Pop’s.
Close the muni stores if the goal is to protect small businesses.
I can’t see it ever happening now. The big boys like Target, HyVee, Cub, and Lunds have already made a work around to sell.
Protecting the small owner operator and municipal stores is why this will never pass. Muni’s help keep most of these towns and cities afloat.
For all the folks virtue signalling on Small Business Saturday, do you buy at big liquor or your mom and pop shop?
In theory, it should be open to grocery stores, but it wont.
What is “virtue signaling,” and why do you find it so offensive?
Some of this is protecting the municipal liquor stores. That’s $36M in revenue that would need to be replaced by local taxes.
To be fair, Sunday sales was by far the bigger issue with regards to alcohol in this state. In the area the most voters live, the metro, liquor stores are ubiquitous, no one is having any problems finding booze when they want it. If there is a problem in the sparsely populated hinterlands (though I cannot remember a time or place where I haven’t had easy access to whatever alcohol I desired, in every corner of the state), that’s gonna just have to be something they live with. Personally I’d just do away with the nonsensical 3:2 provision and just take the booze out of those places that sell it now. It’s not like anyone believes massive national breweries are making special batches of weaker beer for one fairly small market anyway.
Alcohol in grocery stores without the need for a seperate area will never happen as the Teamsters and the Unions won’t allow it without their drivers being the ones delivering the acohol to the stores. I remember reading back when the microbreweries in the State were wanting to expand the daily limits of production and distribution and the Teamsters wouldn’t allow it unless they’re drivers got in on the action.