Skip to main content

AG Hunter Lowers Boom on Barrier to Entry; Legislature Should Follow His Lead


Even as the Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down a recent alcohol distribution law, the Attorney General paved the way for the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Law Enforcement Commission (ABLE) to remove an obstacle from the expansion of liquor store competition - finding that Oklahoma’s five-year in-state residency requirement before one can own a liquor store likely runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution and recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent. 

The AG’s opinion, issued at the end of December, informs the state’s alcohol commission that portions of the state constitution (Article 28A, Section 4(A) & (B)) are unenforceable. These provisions require that ABLE issue a Retail Spirits License or Wine and Spirits Wholesaler License only to someone who has been a resident of Oklahoma for the previous five years. Presumably ABLE, who requested the opinion, will now begin issuing licenses to otherwise qualified applicants regardless of how long they have lived in Oklahoma. 

Tennessee had a similar provision, though only a two-year residency requirement. Last year the law was declared unenforceable because it conflicts with the dormant aspect of the federal constitution’s Commerce Clause. This is the part of the constitution that gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. In addition to affirmatively granting this power, courts have long held that it implied states do NOT have the power to regulate interstate commerce in ways that harmed other states, or residents of other states. 

While the state’s liquor laws are still plagued with crony policies, this is a small victory. Consumers win when they have more options. Licensing makes it harder for new competitors to enter a market. In this instance, liquor licensees in the state were effectively insulated from all out-of-state competition. Who would recognize a market opportunity, move across state lines to fill it, and then wait a non-productive five years before doing so? Almost no one. The true goal of the law was to make sure only “True Oklahomans” - those who live here by accident of birth - could sell liquor. Outsiders who recognize a need and seek to help Oklahomans by providing a service are out of luck. 

Excluding out-of-state entrepreneurs and professionals, or making it more difficult for them to enter the state, is something of a grand tradition in Oklahoma. Attorneys who pass the bar exam in another state are only deemed competent to work in Oklahoma if they have practiced law continuously for FIVE of the last seven years. Those who pass Oklahoma’s bar are full-fledged attorneys from the time of their swearing in. 

Another example is Polygraph Examiners, who are granted reciprocity if they are from a state with equivalent licensing requirements, which also grants reciprocity, but only IF they have first practiced there for TWO years. Funeral Directors wanting to move into Oklahoma must have a license from a state with similar licensing requirements (which is problematic since few states require such burdensome standards) and FIVE years of experience. 

Cosmetologists who went to school in a state without a licensing board are out of luck completely. Oklahoma will not accept training reported directly from a cosmetology school outside the state - only from another licensing agency. Not only does Oklahoma’s legislature evidently believe this state’s cosmetologists are unable to compete with those from out of state, it must also see our cosmetology schools as somehow lesser than their out-of-state rivals. 

We ought to be embarrassed by this. Legislatures of old seemed to think Oklahomans were not bright enough to compete with newcomers. They may also have believed Sooners required more consumer protection than residents of other states (though this is less likely, since licensing does very little to actually protect consumers). While these laws were mostly passed well before anyone presently in the state house took office, it remains a mystery why so little has been done to repeal them. Oklahomans are not any more in need of paternalism or protectionism than anyone else. We can recognize and seize entrepreneurial opportunity as well as anyone else - especially in our own back yard. And we are just as capable of using Yelp or Angie’s list to check a practitioner’s reputation - as anyone else. It’s time the laws of the state reflect this reality. 

Mike Davis is Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Religious Freedom and School Choice in the Nation's High Court

When the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) begins its term next week, one of the many important cases it will consider is that of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue , which addresses Montana’s Tax Credit Scholarship program, and gives the high court an opportunity to decide whether Blaine Amendments (which generally prohibit any state money from going to a “sectarian” purpose) violate the establishment and free exercise clauses of the first amendment, as well as the and equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. At the very least, the justices should rule on whether Blaine Amendments (like Section II-5 of the Oklahoma Constitution) can be used to exclude religious schools from school choice programs which insulate the state from direct subsidy of religious organizations through the “genuine, independent choice of private individuals.”   The question presented to the court is “Whether it violates the religion clauses or the equal protection clause of th...
Read more

Even If Pandemic Models Were Right, Were Covid Lockdowns Wrong?

1889 has been quite critical of pandemic modeling that government officials have relied on for their Covid-19 response. We have also criticized shutdown orders in light of flaws in the models. But let’s assume for a moment that the worst predictions really would have come true if nothing was done. Even in those worst case scenarios, it’s fair to ask if our governments did the right thing. Were involuntary shutdowns justified, or would people have found a way to both limit the contagion and maintain some level of productivity? Was putting healthy citizens under house arrest acceptable even if they were willing to risk infection?   While large groups of people are often compared to herd animals, we are not sheep. We don’t behave like animals. We can, have, and will step up when our communities are in danger. When government and journalists give incomplete or false information, people will act irrationally. Depending on the situation, some will blindly follow the first aut...
Read more

When It Comes to the Cox Center, “What if I Get to Meet a Movie Star?” Isn’t Good Enough

In a recent   post , 1889 Institute expounded on the fiduciary duty of elected officials “to act in the best interest of the people of the state as a whole,” a “high duty, executed as a public trust … wherein one puts the people’s interest above one’s own.” This fiduciary duty must not stop with elected officials. Once an elected body or an elected official – the legislature, a city council, the governor, or a mayor – has taken final action, the faithful implementation of each enacted law, policy, or program falls to an army of bureaucrats. Thus, a fiduciary duty to execute laws and policies with diligence and integrity, tantamount to that of elected officials, must extend to government employees. Recently, I had a few moments to sit down and watch a show with my children. Unsurprisingly, my son picked a series entitled “The Stinky and Dirty Show.” I was naturally skeptical that the show would yield any real value. However, as I watched, I found myself pleasantly surprised. Each ep...
Read more

OKC Public Schools Elevating a Privileged Elite over Oklahoma Taxpayers

The hypocrisy of the Soviet Union’s pretense of egalitarianism was well known enough to be the subject of mockery and parody. Ronald Reagan never tired of the jokes . Soviet communism espoused equality, but the reality is that party apparatchiks and government officials enjoyed special perks that no one else had access to. This special class wasn’t officially paid much more than the average skilled worker, but enjoyed privileges like dachas on the coast or countryside, special stores with imported goods and without the endless lines that were commonplace everywhere else, and more advanced medical treatment. For all their talk about eliminating class distinctions, the Soviet nomenklatura —those “doing the people’s work”—could feather their nest with the best of ‘em. Apparently, a similar attitude reigns in our government schools. Our friends at OCPA report that Oklahoma City Public Schools (OKCPS) will not offer in-person instruction to students for the first nine weeks of school this ...
Read more