There are three different statutory state tally measures that relate to the ways in which white wine is sold and ultimately purchased in Colorado. Proposals 124, 125 and 126 ask people to vote on statutes that, if passed, will alter the rules regarding who will be permitted to offer and distribute wine.Courtesy image
I understand. Simply watching the tv advertisements suffices to drive one to consume. This is the time of year when our democracy goes bananas with messages of obfuscation, as the candidates and advocates of various problems blanket airwaves with confusing advertisements with the seeming intent of befuddling the voting public. And, that’s not the worst of it. The hate ads and the attack ads that pit people against each other are absolutely repellent. So, why is that fodder for this column, which is expected to be about wine, something that brings pleasure and happiness? Well, if you have actually taken the time to look at your official ballot, sent last
week by Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder Ingrid Grueter, you will have observed that there are three different statutory state tally procedures that involve the ways in which white wine is offered and eventually bought in Colorado. Propositions 124, 125, and 126 ask citizens to vote on statutes that, if passed, will alter the guidelines regarding who will be enabled to offer and distribute white wine. While these tally steps are not as visible as the races for U.S. senator, our own District 3 congressional representative
to Congress, or, yes, that essential choice of whom to vote for Pitkin County constable, they do have consequences. And, all 3 steps have received considerable financing for those abovementioned advertisements that typically do more to confuse than notify. Over the coming days prior to the Nov. 8 elections, you likely will see some of them and ask,”What does that imply? “Let’s take a look at them one at a time, and see if we can suss out what the 3 proposals will or will not do. In sequential order, if you vote YES/FOR
Proposal 124, you are voting to allow an increase in the number of “retail alcohol store licenses in which an individual may hold an
interest.”Today, an individual can hold an interest in a maximum of three alcohol shops in Colorado. If the law passes, there will be a steady increase in the number of stores a person may own, or have a share in, with up to eight allowed in 2026, 13 in 2031 and 20 in 2036. After Jan. 1, 2037, or 15 years from now, endless licenses will be enabled. For context, there are presently 1,592 retail liquor shops in the state of Colorado permitted to sell beer, red wine, and all kinds of alcohol. That number will gradually but surely
rise over the coming decade if Proposition 124 passes. Those who support the Proposition 124 argue that consumers will have higher access to items they want to buy, and that it will open the marketplace for private owners to grow their organizations. Those in opposition note that the change will have the impact of opening the local market to the most financially successful entities– i.e., corporations and conglomerates– to open more stores at the expenditure of local community shops. The unintended effect, they argue, is that there will be more shops owned by big chains and fewer small mom-and-pop shops. It must be kept in mind that among the most considerable monetary factors on the YES/FOR side are David Trone, a U.S. agent from Maryland (he is a Democrat )and his bro, Robert Trone. The pair own Total Wine & More, which, according to their website
, has 229 warehouse stores across 27 states, including 3 in Colorado. The YES/FOR supporters have raised over$12 million in donations, while the NO/AGAINST side has, according to Ballotpedia.org, collected less than $1 million in & contributions. While I recognize the capacity for large entities to further control the marketplace, I also believe that Proposition 124 will allow regional merchants to grow their organizations, as well. And, I believe the gradual increase in stores need to prove advantageous for customers. I am voting YES/FOR on Proposal 124. The 2nd tally procedure, Proposal 125, seeks to allow grocery and corner store and other organizations that currently hold licenses to sell beer and fermented drinks to also offer red wine. If the proposal passes, then those facilities’licenses will instantly convert to enable the sale of red wine along with beer
. To put it simply, you will be able to purchase red wine in the same locations you currently buy beer. A YES/FOR vote will be for this modification. This procedure would instantly impact 1,819 places that offer beer however do not presently can offer wine. A NO/AGAINST vote will maintain the status-quo for these facilities. As you would anticipate, the major grocery store retailers– Kroger, Albertson’s, and Target– are all in favor, as they will be able to include a new classification, red wines, to their shelves. Colorado winemaker Kevin Webber, who is likewise CEO of Carboy Winery, has actually shown up in ads, arguing, correctly, that passage of the proposal would increase sales chances for locally-made white wines
. And, it is suggested that this will make white wines offered to neighborhoods that are underserved by regional red wine stores. But, those who oppose it state that the proposal will bring rapid modification to an industry that is currently functioning well, with an instant doubling of the number of locations permitted to offer red wine. Red wine stores located near markets will immediately have intense competition for not just consumers, however also for supplies as deep-pocketed corporations move into the wine world. While I favor free markets, I will be voting NO/AGAINST Proposal 125. Unlike Proposition 124, this has no progressive rollout. It changes the market drastically over night, giving what I think is an unjust advantage to mass-retailers, rather than the shop shops. Yes, it would develop more instant convenience for consumers, however at what long-lasting expense? The final tally procedure in the 2022 election is Proposal 126, perhaps the most complicated
of the three. On the face of it, Proposition 126 will permit alcohol merchants and liquor-licensed organizations, including supermarket, corner store, alcohol stores, bars, and restaurants, to provide third-party shipment services for alcohol shipments starting March 1, 2023. In other words, a dining establishment that has a liquor license and delivers food
through a 3rd party like Uber Consumes will be enabled to likewise provide alcohol, consisting of wines, through that service. There are other provisions in the proposal, however that is the bottom line. In 2020 throughout the pandemic, Colorado passed a law developed to assist the dining establishment market that enabled takeout and shipment of wine and spirits by bars and restaurants. That would be instantly reversed in 2025, however Proposal 126 would extend that chance. Personally, I will be voting YES/FOR Proposition 126, as I believe that opening these sort of sales was not simply a boost for the facilities that needed a boost, but also for customers
. A bottle of wine with a shipment of an Italian dinner is a good idea, and I support that. Hopefully, this brings a little clearness to a few of the initiatives that may seem arcane on your ballot. I hope you offer these three propositions some thought and make sure to cast your votes on Tuesday any way you see fit
. And, after you have voted, pour yourself a glass of wine and toast our democracy.