this code. a regultttion. chatter, or ordbmnw promulgated by a govemmentalentityofthis state may not impose stricter standad on praises or businesses ~tfedhtve~lio~ y permit under this cod! than are imlx~=I busnessesthatarenotreqmredtohavesucha liwnseorpennit. @) It is the intent of the legislature that this code shsll exclusively govern the regukion of alwholic bevcsages in this state,
p. 1188 HononbleDduaDanbug - Page 3 W-229)
andthatexceptaspermittedbythiscod~agovallmmtrlentityof thisstatemaynotdi&mirWeagainstabusbmssboldingalicenseor pamitunderthiswde. Ah. Bev. Code 8 10%57(a),(b). The question befbre us is whether this provision would preanpttheproposedoldinam.
In a recent opinion,hllizs Merclmnt's d Cmcessim're's Associatim, the Texas Stpret~~~Court wnsidered whether section 109.57 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code prwmpta a home-tule city ordinatm prohibitingthe sale of alcoholic beverages within 300 fbetofaresidunialarea Intbatopinio~thecourtstated,"TbeL&kure'sintais dearly eqmssed in section 109.57(b)of tbe [Alwholic Beverage Code)-the mgulation of alwholic bwaages is ctxcbiwly govemed by the provisions of the [Alcoholic Beverage CQde]unless otherhe provided. . . . section 109.57 clearly preempts an ordmance of a home-rule city that regulates where alwholic beverages are sold under most W." 36 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. at 744 (citation and footnotes omitted). The want also noted that section 10957(a) provides that an ordinance may not impose stricter standds on alcohol related btkumes than on non-alwhol related businesses: For exsmple, under section 109.57(a). an ordhmnce requiring all businesseswiththesamekindofpremisestohaveaSreextinguisher on their premise would not violate section 109.57(a). On the other hand,anordkrcemquiringanalwholrelatedbushmsstohavetwo Sre extb&hm and only resuit[mg) a non-alwhol rebrted business withtheaamekindofpmnisestohaveone6reexting&erwould violate section 10957(a). Id. at 745 11.5.3
Subsection (a) prohiii a city from adopting an ordinance imposing "stricter Madardronpnmisesorbusimapesnquindtohavealicaureorpamit...thMarr impo~on~arpnmisesorbusinauesthatannotrequindtohavesuchalicaueor perflit." It eapmses with "um&akable clarity"the IegiskuA intent to preempt such ordmnws We apprwiate the city% dfott to reduce the tran&mion of sexually trammhteci disases by encouraging the use of condoms and distributing educational material. The Texas Supreme Court'sinterpretation of subsection (a) of section 109.57 in Dab Merchnt's & Cmcessionaire's Association, however, wmpels us to condude that the proposed oniinamx would be preempted.
The proposed odinan& justification for rqubing busmess premises upon which alwholic beverages are sold for on-premks wnsumption to make wndoms for sale is
p. 1189 Hooorable Debra Danburg - Page 4 (DM-229)
thatthe~mceofrtcobolcontributestothetraarmisdonof~tnrnsmitted dimses. Itir~rttheK~~lclybecauKtheyrdllrlcoholforo~pmnises wnsumption. It does not require other businesses which might contribute to the trtmmkion of sexuaUytrausmitted diseases, and are therefbre "similar businesses"for pqosesofthepmposedordinaace,tomakewndomsavaiiableforsale. Webelievethis iP~LOdiffQent"~OrdiarnarequiringrnrlWhOlnlatedbusinesstohavetwofite . . amngrushas and only requ@bgj a non-alcohol related business with the same kind of prut&estohaveone6reext@uWfwhichtheTexasSupremeCouitsu~estedwould violate section 109.57(a). Id.
Beausetbe~ord&ncewouldimpose'stricterstandmdsonpremksor btlsimMnquiredtohaverlicenseorpumit.. . thanareimposedonsimilarprunisesor buriaessesthat~notrequindtohaveruchati~or~~"wemurtwncludet would be preempted by subsection (a) of section 109.57 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code as construed by the Texas Supreme CouR4
SUMMARY A proposed City of Houston ordiinance.which would quire "bmdwss premise upon which alcoholic beverages are sold for on- prrmi= consumption"to make wndoms available for sale, would impose "stricter standads on premks or busbmssesrequired to have alicenseorperrnit.. .t.hanareimposedonaimilarpremksor businessesthatarenotrquiredtohavesuchrlicenseorpamit, contrary to subsection (a) of section 109.57 of the Alwholic Beverage Code, and would therefore be preempted by state law.
DAN MORALES Honorable Debra Dmburg - Page 5 W-229)
WILLF'RYOR
MARYKELLER Deputy Attomey &nerd for Litigation
RENEAHICKS State Solicitor.
MADELEINEB. JOHNSON Chsir, OpinionCommittee