Cedar Bluff, Alabama - Wet?

It's still unclear whether the town of Cedar Bluff will eventually be able to allow alcohol sales, but from the sounds of this, some folks have been hitting the bottle pretty hard already.

In 2002, a bill was introduced in the Alabama Legislature to allow a town with between 1,300 and 1,500 people in "dry" Cherokee County to hold a wet-dry referendum. The Legislature asked the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion about the constitutionality of the legislation, and the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision saying the legislation would be unconstitutional.

The next year the Legislature considered an almost identical bill and passed it. Using that legislation, Cedar Bluff held a referendum on Aug. 12, 2003, and approved alcohol sales 649-239...

Cedar Bluff had to get the special legislation passed to hold a wet-dry referendum because state law normally limits such votes to towns with at least 7,000 people in a dry county.

Who knew that legislators could be so subtle? A town with between 1,300 and 1,500 people in Cherokee County - reckon who that could be? (Hint: it's not Centre or Gaylesville.)

Next...

Cherokee County Circuit Judge David Rains...sided with anti-liquor forces and ruled that the state law allowing a wet-dry referendum in Cedar Bluff was unconstitutional and that the outcome of the referendum was invalid.

Now, the Alabama Supreme Court has unanimously reversed Judge Rains's ruling.

The Supreme Court said Rains' ruling must be reversed because the people who
filed the suit - Citizens Caring for Children (formed by one of the local Baptist churches) and the organization's chairman, Carl Green - lacked legal standing to sue.

Writing for the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Drayton Nabers said that to have standing, Green and his group would have to show some injury from the wet-dry issue, which they didn't.

"In the absence of such an injury, there is no case or controversy for a court to consider," Nabers wrote.

Green's side has two weeks to decide whether to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision. Green said Tuesday his organization is reviewing its legal options and has made no decision.

Steele said the town won't take any official action until the Supreme Court's ruling is final.

All of this nonsense might be enough to drive people to drink, despite admonitions from some involved with the group Citizens Caring for Children (CCC), which took the case to court to begin with.

(Hmmm...wonder if the Southern Poverty Law Center has noticed that "CCC" abbreviation and declared them a "hate group" yet?)