Three proposed ballot initiatives seeking to allow wine sales in food stores and third-party alcohol delivery may not move forward to the statewide ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

The justices concluded the proposals contained more than one subject in violation of the state’s constitution.

“In the case of these Initiatives, we conclude that the covered subjects — (1) the sale of wine by retailers licensed to sell beer and (2) the home delivery of alcohol by third-party delivery services — are too distinct to satisfy the single-subject requirement,” wrote Justice Melissa Hart in the June 27 opinion.

The court’s ruling does not affect two other measures approved for circulation, Initiatives #121 and #122, that would separately expand wine sales and alcohol delivery if enacted.

The three ballot initiatives at issue in the Supreme Court’s decision sought to combine the 40-year effort to allow wine sales in grocery and convenience stores with the more modern goal of enabling delivery through companies like Grubhub or Uber Eats. Earlier this year, the three-member Title Board decided the initiatives fit under the constitutional requirement of a single subject and adopted a title for each that would appear on voters’ ballots.

“Some may question the wisdom of Colorado’s march to liberalize its alcohol laws. But resolution of that question falls on the voters and their representatives,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Emily Buckley in defending the actions of the Title Board.

Christopher Fine of Larimer County objected to the board’s decision, arguing there were, in fact, two separate subjects. Combining the two would create an impermissible incentive for supporters of one subject to vote in favor of the overall initiative, even if they opposed the other subject.

“Some voters will favor a one-stop shop for baby food and sauvignon blanc,” wrote lawyer Mark G. Grueskin. “But those voters may not back delivery of tequila and bourbon to whatever 21-year-old answers the door.”

Grueskin cited to the Title Board hearing itself, where members wrestled with those same concerns before ultimately green-lighting the measures on a 2-1 vote. He characterized the ballot initiatives as an attempt by supermarket owners to broaden the coalition of voters who might support wine sales in grocery stores. Coloradans previously rejected the concept in 1982 by a margin of 65%-35%.

The Supreme Court agreed with Grueskin’s single-subject argument, noting the purpose of the constitutional provision is to prevent “log-rolling” — or the combination of two separate subjects to entice a coalition of voters into supporting both. Although the alcohol initiatives’ subjects were related in the most general sense, the court determined the relationship between wine sales and alcohol delivery was too attenuated to satisfy the constitution.

“The mere fact that both topics involve the regulation of alcohol is not enough to make them necessarily and properly connected,” Hart wrote.

Nonpartisan fiscal analysis of the three initiatives found the amount of new tax revenue would have equaled the increased costs to the state under the proposals. Of the economic impact, the analysis suggested consumers might shift their purchases from liquor stores to grocery or convenience stores. There would also be an increase in revenue for third-party delivery services and job opportunities between retailers would potentially shift.