As we’ve become aware three alcohol initiatives will appear on Colorado’s November ballot, it’s not unreasonable to wonder why. Is there any persuasive evidence that the state’s beer and liquor regulations smother public access to alcoholic beverages? Not as far as I can see. In fact, there’s virtually no discussion of alcohol policy overheard at bars or restaurants aside from customers’ preferred libations. Now that cocktails have broken through the $10 ceiling, a drink or two can cost more than the price of a bottle. Imbibing alone at home feels more frugal than pathetic.

There’s much to be learned from legal “turf” tussles for profits. First is the destruction in state courts and at the Legislature of the citizen-initiative process outlined in Colorado’s constitution. Originally approved by voters a century ago during the progressive era, the right to petition a question onto the ballot was meant to empower the powerless. But, during the past 30 years, courts and legislators have reshaped this right in ways that have effectively stripped citizens of it while further empowering the economically powerful.

As originally conceived, the initiative was intended to be a voluntary, grassroots process. Any eligible voter could sign, the number of required signatures was substantial, and petitioners could not be paid for their labors. Since 1980 election lawyers and legislators have “tweaked: the initiative process in a cumulative assault, admittedly without any genuinely coherent intent, that has undermined citizen participation. Permissible signatures were restricted to registered voters, then petition activists convinced Colorado courts that prohibiting paid circulators was an infringement on the rights of free association and free speech. Initially, the impact from these alleged reforms seemed more a nuisance than an obstacle.

By 2022, circulators could earn $5 or $6 per valid signature as the cost of a successful petition campaign approaches $2 million. Consequently, it is increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to collect sufficient signatures with an all-volunteer workforce, whatever the merits of a proposition. Commercial interests, on the other hand, have been quick to fund initiative drives designed to line their pockets. During Colorado’s pandemic lockdowns, liquor, wine and beer sales experienced a huge boost. Profits were high and initiatives 96, 121 and 122 on this year’s ballot will put these market-share squabbles before voters.

In a national economy that has concentrated retail sales within gigantic corporations, it’s little surprise the alcohol marketplace offers an attractive target. If you vote “yes,” you are prioritizing cost over convenience. Prop 96 removes ownership limits, allowing a single operator to open as many stores as they want. Prop 121 moves wine sales into groceries and Prop 122 allows third-party delivery of alcohol products. Before we consider a comparison of the tension between cost and convenience, it’s worth considering whether the entire initiative process requires an additional re-tooling. Recently members of Congress approved the Inflation Reduction Act (Build Back Better 3.0) with an online vote cast from their individual districts while taking a recess. Kind of cool, all things considered.

During the pandemic, several statewide citizen initiatives requested permission to collect signatures online. The technology and security protocols exist to protect both the privacy and security of electronic signatures, as we all know. The Colorado Supreme Court denied these requests and a residual dispute remains concerning whether the legal barrier was deemed constitutional or statutory in nature. Either way, the Legislature can remove this impediment either through legislation or by submitting a referendum to voters. This would give the grassroots, on both the right and the left, a fighting chance of enlisting signatures again.

The repeal of prohibition unleashed a complex array of liquor control regimens across the country. Several states still operate state-controlled liquor stores, which enjoy significant local support. In Pennsylvania, for example, these stores provide well-paying jobs in rural areas and assure every village enjoys a liquor outlet. Efficient? Probably not so much. The groups trying to change Colorado laws, “Wine in Grocery Store,” Total Wine, UberEats and DoorDash are hoping to engineer the cash grab their opponents accuse them of. The question is whether this is a bad thing. In rural communities, the threat is small because their markets are too small to attract competition from the Targets, Krogers and Whole Foods dotting the Front Range.

Most at risk are strip mall retailers located in the ‘burbs — liquor stores you can walk to where they know your name and what you drink. What’s that worth to you? The beer-in-grocery-stores fight was waged 40 years ago when I managed the Denver Department of Excise and Licenses. Our investigations discovered that Walmart was profitably retailing Budweiser for less than Mom & Pop stores could purchase it wholesale. The volume discount on a trainload of cans is considerable. Throwing in wine sales? Is that fair or tough luck?

Miller Hudson is a public affairs consultant and a former Colorado legislator.