After North Carolina rewrote its alcoholic beverage laws in 1981, could the ABC Commission issue on-premises wine permits to Gastonia restaurants and hotels even though Gastonia voters had previously voted for ABC stores only (no on-premises wine)?
Plain-English summary
NC's alcohol regulation has long worked on a layered local-option system: each county or qualified city can vote separately on whether to allow ABC stores, malt beverage sales, unfortified wine sales, fortified wine sales, and (eventually) mixed beverages. Different jurisdictions had voted for different combinations. The City of Gastonia, for example, had approved ABC stores but had voted against (or simply not voted for) on-premises wine sales.
In 1981, the General Assembly rewrote NC's alcoholic beverage control laws wholesale through Chapter 412 of the 1981 Session Laws. The rewrite replaced the old Chapter 18A with a new Chapter 18B effective January 1, 1982. One of the new provisions, G.S. 18B-603(c)(2), said that where ABC stores were approved, "[t]he Commission may issue on-premises and off-premises fortified wine and unfortified wine permits to qualified persons and establishments in that jurisdiction, regardless of any unfortified wine election or any local act." Section 9 of Chapter 412 repealed all local, public-local, and private acts in conflict with the new Article 6, with carve-outs at G.S. 18B-604(b) and (c) and G.S. 18B-605.
The ABC Commission's Chief Hearing Officer asked the AG whether Gastonia restaurants and hotels could now get on-premises wine permits despite the city's earlier vote pattern. AG Rufus L. Edmisten and Special Deputy AG David S. Crump said yes. The new statute's "regardless of any unfortified wine election or any local act" language was deliberate. The 1981 rewrite preempted prior election results that conflicted with the new statewide framework, except as expressly preserved at § 18B-604(b) and (c) and § 18B-605 (which kept some local-option election results in effect for ABC store authorization itself).
The opinion declared several earlier AG opinions and letter opinions no longer authoritative. The deauthorized list included opinions about wine sales in Monroe (1970, 1972), Gastonia (1971), Brevard (1979), Lenoir (1979), Scotland County (1980), Shelby (1980), and Tabor City (1981).
The opinion closed with a pointed legislative-policy observation: the new framework yokes wine permits to ABC store approval. Voters in jurisdictions that had specifically rejected on-premises wine sales would now find their restaurants and hotels eligible for those permits simply because they had previously approved control stores. NC's courts had long distinguished between sales by the State (through ABC stores) and sales by private entities. The AG noted that a voter could quite logically support state-store sales while opposing private on-premises sales, and yet now the local option had been collapsed.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1982. 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. NC's ABC laws have been amended many times since 1982, including changes to mixed beverages, distillery permits, and various carve-outs for breweries, wineries, and event venues. Chapter 18B's structure has also been modified. Anyone analyzing a current ABC permit question should consult the current statute and ABC Commission rules.
Background and statutory framework
NC ABC regulation traces to the 1937 Turlington Act, which set up the state-store model after the repeal of Prohibition. For decades, the framework worked through a series of local-option elections that gave each county and qualified city its own combination of allowed sales channels. The 1971 General Assembly recodified the laws as Chapter 18A. The 1981 General Assembly rewrote them again as Chapter 18B, effective January 1, 1982.
A key design choice in the 1981 rewrite was the consolidation of permit categories. Rather than allowing each local jurisdiction to vote separately on every category (on-premises beer, off-premises beer, on-premises unfortified wine, off-premises unfortified wine, on-premises fortified wine, off-premises fortified wine, ABC stores, mixed beverages), the General Assembly tied some categories together. The result: if a jurisdiction approved ABC stores, it automatically also got wine-permit eligibility for both on-premises and off-premises.
That bundling was deliberate. The legislative purpose was simplification and uniformity. Wine sales had become a significant share of NC's alcohol consumption, and the General Assembly judged that ABC-store-approving jurisdictions had effectively endorsed the broader presence of alcohol commerce. The trade-off was the loss of fine-grained local option for jurisdictions that wanted state stores without expanded private wine sales.
The AG's 1982 opinion confirmed that the General Assembly's design worked: the new G.S. 18B-603(c)(2) preempted prior local elections, the deauthorized list of earlier AG opinions reflected the legal landscape's shift, and the ABC Commission could now issue permits accordingly. The policy critique the AG flagged about voter intent went to the General Assembly, not the courts.
Common questions
Did Gastonia voters get a chance to vote on the new on-premises wine permits?
Not specifically, under the 1981 framework. The new G.S. 18B-603(c)(2) tied wine-permit eligibility to ABC-store approval. The voters' earlier choice to approve ABC stores carried with it (under the new law) approval for on-premises wine sales. The AG noted this as a "legislative anomaly" and invited the General Assembly to reconsider.
Could Gastonia voters un-approve ABC stores to push back?
Yes, in principle, subject to the eligibility rules in G.S. 18B-600 for new local-option elections. But undoing ABC store authorization for the sake of blocking wine sales would have been a much larger step.
Did this opinion apply to other ABC-store jurisdictions?
Yes. The opinion's analysis was statewide. The Gastonia question was illustrative; the answer applied to any jurisdiction that had approved ABC stores under prior law.
What about mixed beverages?
Mixed beverages required their own separate local-option vote even under the 1981 rewrite. This opinion doesn't address mixed-beverage permits; it concerns wine permits only.
Source
Citations
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 18B-600
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 18B-603
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 18B-603(c)(2)
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 18B-604(b), (c)
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 18B-605
- 1981 Sess. Laws ch. 412
- Gardner v. Reidsville, 269 N.C. 581, 153 S.E.2d 139 (1967)
- Smith v. Mecklenburg County, 280 N.C. 497, 187 S.E.2d 67 (1972)
- Nelson v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 26 N.C. App. 303, 216 S.E.2d 152 (1975)
Original opinion text
Requested By:
Ann S. Fulton
Chief Hearing Officer
Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission
Questions:
(1) Does the ABC Commission have the authority to issue on-premise fortified and/or unfortified wine permits to qualified restaurants and hotels in the City of Gastonia?
(2) Do the provisions of G.S. 18B-603(c)(2), and Sections 9 and 10 of Chapter 412 have the effect of superseding all previous local acts and elections in other counties and municipalities which have approved the establishment of ABC stores, but have previously either voted to allow only off-premises sales of "unfortified wines" or "wines," or voted against on-premise sales of "unfortified wines" or "wines?"
Conclusions:
(1) The Commission may issue on-premises and off-premises fortified wine and unfortified wine permits to qualified persons and establishments in the City of Gastonia.
(2) Yes.
The 1981 Session of the North Carolina General Assembly enacted as Chapter 412 of its Session Laws "An Act to Rewrite the Alcoholic Beverage Control Laws." By § 1 of that Act Chapter 18A of the General Statutes was repealed; § 2 enacted a new Chapter 18B to regulate intoxicating liquors. The principal provisions of Chapter 18B became effective January 1, 1982, Session Laws 1981 Chapter 412, § 11. Like Chapter 872, 1971 Session Laws, which repealed old Chapter 18 and enacted Chapter 18A, Chapter 412 generally repealed the former liquor control laws. Former Chapter 18A of the General Statutes contained a section, G.S. 18A-57 which preserved in effect local acts and the results of local option elections. Chapter 412 of the 1981 Session Laws by §§ 7, 8 and 9 repeals all local, public-local and private acts in conflict with certain enumerated sections of new Chapter 18B. Local acts not in conflict with those provisions would, of course, continue in effect.
Section 9 of Chapter 412 repeals "all local, public-local, and private acts in conflict with Article 6 of Chapter 18B . . . except as provided in G.S. 18B-604(b) and (c) and in G.S. 18B-605." G.S. 18B-605 provides:
"§ 18B-605. Local act elections. — If a jurisdiction has voted in favor of ABC stores or in favor of the sale of some kind of alcoholic beverage, pursuant to a local act enacted before the effective date of this Chapter, and the jurisdiction would not be eligible to hold another election under the conditions set by G.S. 18B-600, then that jurisdiction may hold subsequent elections under the terms of the applicable local act. Except for the authority to hold the election, however, the procedures of this Chapter shall apply to any subsequent election."
Section 10 of Chapter 412, 1981 Session Laws provides, in part:
"All sales of alcoholic beverages which were approved in elections held before the effective date of this act remain valid under the terms of those elections except as G.S. 18B-603 allows the issuance of permits that were not authorized under the comparable provisions of Chapter 18A."
Thus, the clear intent of the General Assembly is that no new elections need be held to authorize the establishment of ABC stores or the sales of alcoholic beverages. The consequences of those elections, however, are to be determined by reference to new Chapter 18B, as of its effective date, regardless of when the election was held.
The effect of various alcoholic beverage control elections on the issuance of permits is described in G.S. 18B-603. G.S. 18B-603(c)(2) provides that where the establishment of ABC stores is approved:
"(2) The commission may issue on-premises and off-premises fortified wine and unfortified wine permits to qualified persons and establishments in that jurisdiction, regardless of any unfortified wine election or any local act." (Emphasis added.)
In view of the foregoing, the following formal opinions of this Office are no longer to be regarded as authoritative: 41 N.C.A.G. 100 (8 October 1970) regarding the sale of sweet wines in Monroe; 41 N.C.A.G. 630 (23 November 1971) restrictions on the sale of wine in the City of Gastonia; and 42 N.C.A.G. 4 (7 July 1972) regarding the sale of sweet wines in Monroe. The following letter opinions of the undersigned should no longer be regarded as authoritative: letter to Ann S. Fulton dated July 26, 1979, regarding sale of fortified and unfortified wines in the City of Brevard; letter of November 26, 1979, to T. D. Zwiegart, regarding sales of wine in the City of Lenoir; letter of March 4, 1980 to Ann S. Fulton, regarding sale of wine in Scotland County; letter of December 11, 1980 to Derek O. Godwin, regarding the sale of wine in the City of Shelby; letter of December 10, 1981 to O. Richard Wright, Jr., regarding wine sales in Tabor City.
The attention of the General Assembly is invited to the apparent anomaly it has created. The ABC laws give counties and qualified cities the option to vote on any of four malt beverage marketing plans, any of three unfortified wine marketing plans, ABC stores and mixed beverages. Voters have no option to vote on fortified wine sales. The courts have, in the past, drawn a sharp distinction between the sale of intoxicants by the State through its control stores, Gardner v. Reidsville, 269 N.C. 581, 153 S.E.2d 139 (1967), and sales of intoxicants by private persons, see, e.g., Smith v. Mecklenburg County, 280 N.C. 497, 187 S.E.2d 67 (1972); Nelson v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 26 N.C. App. 303, 216 S.E.2d 152 (1975). The voter could, of course, quite logically favor sales by the State through control stores and oppose private sales. Nevertheless, as part of having voted for control stores the locality now acquires on- and off-premise wines sales, without regard to the wishes of the voters.
Rufus L. Edmisten
Attorney General
David S. Crump
Special Deputy Attorney General
Special Assistant to the Attorney General