Which 1990 census counts did Connecticut use to decide how many package store permits a town could have?

Plain-English summary

The Connecticut Attorney General concluded that the 1990 decennial census was “completed” for the Package Store Ratio Law when the Census Bureau issued, and Connecticut received, official population counts for its towns on January 24, 1991. The Department of Liquor Control could use those counts to determine package store permit eligibility under § 30-14a. The possibility of later corrections for an undercount or overcount did not delay the completion date under the statute's wording.

The opinion addressed a practical conflict: the Census Bureau called the figures official but warned that litigation could produce corrected counts. The Attorney General relied on the statute's phrase “most recently completed decennial census” and a Connecticut case treating publicly released, geographically broken-down figures as a completed census for practical purposes. The opinion said the January counts should govern permit eligibility until the 2000 census was completed. It declined to treat later adjustments or special counts as part of the formula when the legislature had not written them into it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

For liquor control staff: The opinion identified January 24, 1991 as the operative completion date for the 1990 census. It said the official population counts received that day should be used for town-by-town package store eligibility until the next decennial census was completed.

For package store applicants: At the time, the ratio law allowed one package store permit per 2,500 town residents measured by the most recently completed decennial census. The opinion also recalled an earlier AG view requiring a full additional 2,500 residents for another permit. It noted that applicants could not keep applications on a waiting list pending census results.

For towns: The relevant figures were the official counts broken down by Connecticut jurisdiction. The opinion recognized that later federal adjustments might change those figures, but said their effect on permit numbers was speculative and the legislature had not provided for their use in this statute.

Common questions

Did Connecticut have to wait for possible corrections to the 1990 census before issuing package store permits?

The Attorney General said no. The official town counts received on January 24, 1991 met the statute's “most recently completed decennial census” requirement, even though the Census Bureau warned of possible corrections.

Could a town use a later special census to increase its package store permit allowance?

The opinion said the 1991 statute measured population by the decennial census and did not provide for later Census Bureau adjustments or special census releases in its formula.

How many additional residents did a town need for another package store permit under the opinion's 1991 reading?

The opinion described the statutory ratio as one permit for every 2,500 town residents and cited an earlier AG opinion saying that an additional permit required a full increment of 2,500 people, rather than a fraction of that amount.

Background and statutory framework

The Package Store Ratio Law, § 30-14a, tied package store permits to the population of each town as determined by the “most recently completed decennial census.” The Census Bureau sent Connecticut official 1990 town counts on January 24, 1991, with a warning that litigation could lead to corrections. The Attorney General pointed to 13 U.S.C. § 141(c), under which the Bureau considered those counts its completed state tabulation, and to Cahill v. Leopold, which treated released geographic census figures as complete for practical purposes despite possible adjustments. The opinion concluded that the statutory language fixed the operative counts at their official release.

Citations and references

The opinion applies § 30-14a, discusses 13 U.S.C. § 141(c), and relies on Cahill v. Leopold, 141 Conn. 1, 11-13, 103 A.2d 818 (1954). The original text below preserves the source's spelling and transcription.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1991-formal-opinions/william-w-sullivan-department-of-liquor-control-1991022-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-connectic

Original opinion text

William W. Sullivan, Department of Liquor Control, 1991-022 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

July 7, 1991

William W. Sullivan

Chairman

Department of Liquor Control

165 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Chairman Sullivan:

The issue in this request for opinion is whether the census data, received by the state on January 24, 1991, constitutes "the most recently completed decennial census" within the meaning of Conn. Gen.. Stat. §30-14a. That statute, known as the Package Store Ratio Law, establishes a formula allowing issuance of new package store permits in towns based on the results of the decennial census. The statute provides as follows:

The department of liquor control shall not issue any package store permit for a period o five years from June 8, 1981, but may renew any such permit issued prior to said date and may allow the removal of premises operated under any such permit prior to said date. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any permit for which application was made to the department prior to June 8, 1981. A package store permit premises may be removed, or the permit may be renewed, by the person to whom it was issued or by any person who is a transferee or purchaser of premises operating under a package store permit and who meets the requirements of this chapter concerning eligibility for a liquor permit. Commencing five years after June 8, 1981, the department may issue one package store permit for every twenty-five hundred residents of a town as determined by the most recently completed decennial census. The department may authorize the holder of such permit to remove his permit premises to a location in another town provided such removal complies with the provisions of this chapter.

Conn. Gen.. Stat. § 30-14a (Emphasis added).

For the following reasons, we believe that the January 24, 1991 data constitute the completed census for purposes of the Package Store Ratio Law.

By way of background, the legislative history of the Ratio Law demonstrates that it was enacted as apart of a package of revisions to the Liquor Control Act, the centerpiece of which was the elimination of minimum price markups to make the industry more price competitive, benefiting the consumer and generating increased sales tax revenues to the State of Connecticut. 1981 Conn. Pub.. Acts No. 81-294; Remarks of Rep. Carragher, 24 H. Proc. 1981 Sess. Pt. 5 at 1484-1491 As a counterweight to address the concern that the new competition would devour previously protected small businesses, the legislature imposed a five-year moratorium on the issuance of new package store permits (which moratorium expired in 1986) and thereafter additional permits would be allowed in eligible towns under the Ratio Law only if the population grew by 2,500 people. Remarks of Sen. Mustone, 24 S. Proc. 1981 Sess. Pt. 10 at 3403-3407. The increment of population eligible for an additional license is a full 2,500 persons, not a fraction thereof. 87 Conn. Op. Atty. Gen. 239 (19897). By its plain language, the statute measures population using the decennial census, which is taken once every ten years. U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 2.

As reported in the opinion request, on January 24, 1991, the state received from the federal Bureau of the Census the "official population counts" derived from the 1990 decennial census. However, in a cover letter accompanying those data, Barbara Everitt Bryant, Director of the federal Census Bureau, indicated, "As required by Stipulation and Order in t he New York adjustment litigation, these population counts are subject to possible correction for undercount or over count." See Cover Letter and Census Data, Attachment A. director Bryant's letter recited that corrected counts, if any, would be published no later than July 15, 1991. Id. The Stipulation and Order referenced was entered in City of New York, et al. v. Untied States Department of Commerce, et al., No. 88 Civ. 3474 (J McL) (E.D.N.Y. July 17, 1989), Attachment B. Corrected counts, if any, would involve all states, not just New York. Id. Several practical problems arise from this circumstance. For example, if the official figures are used and later adjusted, permit allowances might have to be changed. On the other hand, if the Department waits until July 15 for possible corrections, there is no guarantee that those figures will not be the subject of further litigation and delay pursuant to paragraph 11 of the New York adjustment litigation stipulation. Id. Moreover, package store license applicants are not permitted to maintain applications on a waiting list pending census results. 87 Conn. Op. Atty. Gen., supra. Clearly, shifting eligibility dates and drifting population counts would cause much confusion and might result in voidance of permits issued under incorrect data. Cf. Kopp v. Stat, 100 Idaho 160, 595 P.2d 309 (1979).

There is no specific federal statutory provision with reference to the time when a census becomes final, only that basic tabulations of population shall be "completed, reported and transmitted to each respective state within one year after the decennial census date", i.e. by April 1, 1991. 13 U.S.C. § 141(c). The Census Bureau considers the data supplied on January 24, 1991 as fulfilling the requirements of 13 U.S.C. § 141(c). See Letter from Census Redistricting Chief Marshall L. Turner, Jr. dated February 28, 1991, Attachment C. Across the nation, in various types of legislation which reference the results of the census, the effective date of the census is critical. The conclusions of the courts in identifying that date typically turn on the language of the state statute involved. See generally, Anno. 100 A.L.R. 2d 1353.

The leading case in Connecticut involved the redistricting formula in Conn. Const., Amend. XXXI, Sec. 2 (1901) which referenced decennial census data from the "completion of the next census". The court there concluded that once the census figures are broken down into counties, towns, wards, etc. and are released to the public by an authorized official, the census is completed for all practical purposes, notwithstanding the likelihood of subsequent adjustments. Cahill v. Leopold, 141 Conn. 1, 11-13, 103 A.2d 818 (1954) overruled (on other grounds), Butterworth v. Demsey, 229 F.Supp. 754, 760 (D. Conn. 1964); accord State of New Jersey v. Apportionment Commission, ___ N.J. ___, ___ A.2d ___ Nos . A-170o/174/175 (N.J. Sup. Ct. February 27, 1991), Attachment D; City of Rochester v. Monroe County, 114 Misc. 2d 191, 451 N.Y.S. 2d 359 (1982) aff'd 93 A.D. 2d 625, 462 N.Y.S. 2d 359 (1983); City of Detroit v. State Comm'r of Revenue, 330 Mich. 239, 47 N.W. 2d 4 (1951).

The language of the Package Store Ratio Law, referencing the "most recently completed" decennial census, is substantially the same as the pertinent language construed in the Cahill case and we find no significance in the difference in phrasing. The data supplied by the Census Bureau, described as official and completed by t hat agency, contains the break down by towns necessary for the Package Store Ratio Law and it satisfies the Cahill test. Thus, we conclude that the 1990 decennial census was completed when the Bureau of the Census issued, and the State of Connecticut received, the official population counts for all jurisdictions in Connecticut which occurred on January 24, 1991. These figures should be sued for determining package store eligibility until the 2000 decennial census is completed.

We acknowledge that the data supplied by the Census Bureau may change in the future, either as a result of the New York litigation, or as a result of any challenges permissible under 15 C.F.R. § 90.1 et seq ., or pursuant to any current data release or special census issued pursuant to 13 U.S.C. §§ 181 or 196. Whether any such changes will affect the number of permits eligible to be issued under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-14a is speculative. Nevertheless, the completion date requires identification. In this regard, had the Connecticut General Assembly intended to recognize adjustments emanating from the Census Bureau, it could have written such a statute. See e.g. , Kopp v. State, supra (Liquor licenses issued based upon last preceding census, or any subsequent special census, be it decennial, biennial or annual). It did not, and we cannot, by interpretation, amend the law. That is a legislative function. Danbury v. Corbett, 139 Conn.. 379, 384, 94 A.2d 6 (1953).

For all the foregoing reasons, we believe that the January 24, 1991 data constitute the completed census for purposes of the Package Store Ratio Law.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Robert F. Vacchelli

Assistant Attorney General

RB/RFV/td