1

Kentucky Local Option Elections

The Effects of District Size and Alcohol Measure on Local Option Ballot Mea-

sures

By: Tyler Collins

Murray State University

Spring of 2013

2

Abstract

There are several types of local option alcohol votes in the state of Kentucky. There can

be a vote by county, city, or precinct and there are seven categories of alcohol votes. The seven

alcohol categories are Wet/Dry, Limited Restaurant, Golf, Winery, Beer Only, Qualified Histori-

cal sites, and Expanded Sales. This paper argues that the size of the district for alcohol ballot

elections have no significance while type of alcohol measure does.

When prohibition was repealed many States took the choice of Local Option alcohol

sales. (Kentucky Constitution. 1891. 64)

“[t]he General Assembly shall, by general law, provide a means whereby the sense

of the people of any county, city, town, district or precinct may be taken, as to

whether or not spirituous, vinous or malt liquors shall be sold, bartered or loaned

therein, or the sale thereof regulated. But nothing herein shall be construed to inter-

fere with or to repeal any law in force relating to the sale or gift of such liquors. All

elections on this question may be held on a day other than the regular election

days.”

Most areas where dry counties exist are in rural southern areas of the country, the major-

ity faith is often evangelical protestant. This paper analyzes prohibition elections results to find if

there is an impact on district size and type of alcohol measure. Knowing this information is key

to bringing alcohol into dry communities in a well regulated and electorally efficient way.

Local option elections are studied in the field of Political Science, which is a subset of

Public Administration. Alcohol is a highly regulated industry and the public policies on alcohol

effect how alcohol is made, bought, sold, taxed, advertised, and consumed. My research fits into

3

other topics done on the subject such as religion being a factor on how alcohol is viewed and

why it is a regulated industry.

Literature Review:

This paper is built on (Scalen and Payne.2011) in understanding how alcohol effects dry

territory in Texas. It is then looked at from a specifically Kentucky view which previous research

by (Ferrell. 2004) which studied Kentucky local option laws.(Cochran, Beeghley and E. Wilbur

Bock. 1988) “Reference Group Theory” is an idea that is introduced that is important in under-

standing Wet/Dry votes. This looks at a areas religious denominations and explains the effect it

has on the alcohol policy and how alcohol is consumed in that area. This is important because of

work such as (Gerber, Grumber, Daniel Hungerman. 2008.) This is expanded on by seeing how

church attendance effects voter turnout but studying blue law repeal.

Previous work on local option elections and alcohol opinion contribute to my research in

a contextual way. By understanding religious denomination effects on the ballot issue, how bal-

lot votes effect public opinion on issues (Wooddy and Stouffer.1930), and how public opinion on

alcohol has changed over the years (Roizen. 2004) All of these things play crucial roles into un-

derstanding how our public policy is and how areas should work to repeal alcohol bans and

where they might want to leave them.

Election results as part of the literature for my contribution comes from the Kentucky

State Board of Elections. All registered voters are listed by year online by county, city, and

precinct. Furthermore, the results of the local option elections were provided by the Kentucky

Alcohol Beverage Control.

Thesis:

4

Smaller district sizes and more restrictive policies of alcohol availability on the ballot are

no more likely to pass than larger district sizes and greater alcohol availability in Kentucky. With

the exception of Winery options and Golf Course/Country club elections are however more

likely to pass.

Dimentions/Operationalizations:

The specific dimensions/operationalizations that I am using for my analysis is the elec-

tion results from Kentucky since 1970. The information that is contained in the data is the year of

the election, the county the vote was in, level of alcohol measure, if the measure passed or failed,

total number of votes, and if it was a county, city, or precinct vote. This research is independent

of previous research because it specifically focuses on Kentucky elections. Kentucky is in a class

of its own when it comes to alcohol policy because it is in the bible belt. However, it is also the

bourbon state and illegal moonshine plays a role in local option elections in rural areas. Corrup-

tion can not be efficiently measured so the degree to which this plays a role is unknown, but it

does exist.

Method of Analysis:

This paper uses two methods of analysis to look at local option elections in Kentucky

since 1970. Cross-tabulation method is used in looking at district sizes and the rate at which they

pass and or fail. Regression is used when looking at what kind of alcohol measure was voted on.

There are seven different kinds of alcohol measures and regression is used to understand if cer-

tain alcohol measures are more likely to pass or fail depending on if it is on the county, city, or

precinct level. These methods are used because it is the best way of examining how these elec-

tions differ from each other in outcome.

5

Each election since 2000 was separated by vote type; a 1 is assigned to a county vote, 2

for a city vote, and 3 for a precinct vote. In the pass column a 1 is assigned if the measure passed

and a 2 if the measure failed. Alcohol measures wet, restaurant, country club, winery, beer only,

qualified historic sites, and extended ordinances were set up with dummy variables and regres-

sions ran. The percentage of republicans in a district were used as a measure of conservatism.

Measurement Limits:

Analyzing election by vote type and alcohol measure type has not been researched and

published for Kentucky. The period chosen are the local option elections from 2000-present,

these are the elections that are studied however; the wets began to gain traction on the drys as

early as the 1970’s. Problems with this research include some elections since 2000 that have

been purged due to unreliable data documentation by Kentucky county Clerks.

In previous research, conservatism has been measured by religiosity. Religiosity is the

better measure for measuring moral voting, but conservatism is a relatively consistent measure

and has been used in other research. This decision was made because I am measuring elections

down to the precinct level and reliable religious data is only available by county level.

Findings & Discussion

Table 1 shows that 24 county elections were held, 15 of which failed and 9 passed by a

38% to 62% ratio. The city which had 103 elections 69% passed and 34% failed and 161 precinct

elections 47% passed and 53% failed. This table represents the total amount of elections held in

Kentucky Table 2 however, what is contained in this papers data test and have some elections

missing due to poorly recorded data. 16 county elections yielded a 31% pass and 69% fail result.

The city with 69 elections yielded 70% pass with a 30% fail, with the precinct level data with 79

elections yielded a 62% pass and 38% fail ratio.

Table 1. elections held in Kentucky since 2000

6

Table 1 Elections Pass Fail Pass % Fail % County 24 9 15 38% 62%City 103 69 34 67% 33%Precinct 161 75 86 47% 53%

Table 2. elections held in Kentucky since 2000 after purge of elections with questionable data

Table 2 Elections Pass Fail Pass % Fail %County 16 5 11 31% 69%City 69 48 21 70% 30%Precinct 79 49 30 62% 38%

Table 3

Republican voters as constant (-.1352) .89264

City (1.67176) 0.00132

Wet (0.50906) 0.61143

Golf (3.54842) 0.00132

Winery (2.72734) 0.00712

Observations 163 R squared .10663t- value in parenthesis, p-value in next column. Significant at 95%

Table 3 is the results from the regression and it shows that size of the jurisdiction is not

statistically significant despite a greater number of elections passing. The city however came

close to significance at .096576. Alcohol type did yield some elections that are more likely to

pass than others. Wineries are statistically significant in passing with a .007116 and country

clubs/golf courses are more likely to pass at 0.000512.

7

Discussion

Views on alcohol can be divided up into three views, (Moore and Dean. 1981. P 10)

“The Colonial View: drinking is a valued social custom; overindulgence is a weakness in

moral character; public discipline is the appropriate response. The Temperance View: alco-

hol (at least, strong liquor) is an addicting poison; its sale is a public hazard; use of the law to re-

strict its sale is the appropriate response. The Alcoholism View: alcoholism is a disease; it

causes are as yet unknown; treatment of those who are vulnerable to it is the appropriate re-

sponse.” The Colonial view is largely the view held by those who work for the cause of the wets

however, even modern day temperance groups promote alcohol policy that does not restrict the

sale but focuses on minimizing the effects caused by alcohol. Areas that are holding local option

elections will find it in their benefit if the community is politically liberal. (Brown and Jewell. P

1048) “Politically liberal counties, as measured by percent Democratic voters, are more likely to

be wet, although it is unclear whether political liberals have less aversion to alcohol or more

aversion to government limits on individual behavior.”

Views on alcohol can also vary depending if alcohol is currently on the ballot. (Wooddy

and Stouffer. 1930. P 185) “A shift of 10 or 15 percent in a community in which 80 per cent of

the voters usually vote dry might indicate less of a change in public opinion than a shift of 4 or 5

per cent in a community in which the voters are usually almost evenly divided.” What is un-

known is the effects that surrounding counties may have on determining what the views on alco-

hol is. Such as if a dry county is surrounded by three wet counties. (Scalen and Payne. 2011. P

65) “alcohol use is so extensive, systemic, and common the term dry is a misnomer. The true effects of

prohibition do not exist.”

Views on alcohol have a substantial relationship with what religion or religious denomi-

nation that individual me be personally proscribed to. (Bock, Cochran, Beeghley. 1987. P 95)

8

“Those unaffiliated with any organized religion reveal the highest proportion of users (90%).

Episcopalians are the next highest proportion of users (87%), followed by Catholics (86%),

Lutherans and Jews (85%) Presbyterians (78%), Methodist (68%), and Baptists and other Protes-

tants (56%).” As imagined Catholics view alcohol more favorably than Baptist and other Protes-

tants. These views are important because of the (Gerber, Grumber, and Hungerman. 2008. P 16)

“strong positive associations between individual voter turnout and education, union membership,

and church attendance.” Not only are more people likely to view alcohol with more reservations

in religious communities but they are more likely to vote than their non-religious counterparts.

Reference group theory is not just useful for understanding how one belonging to a par-

ticular religious denomination might view alcohol but (Ford and Kadusin. 2002. P. 262) “may be

more important in prediction risk for alcohol dependency, the degree of social integration, as

measured by frequency of service attendance, also contributes substantially to the likelihood of

risk.” Interestingly enough, those who drink who belong to a religious order that views alcohol

negatively may be more likely to abuse alcohol than those who view alcohol favorably. How-

ever,(Cochran, Beeghley, Bock, 1987. P 273) “People affiliated with different denominations

will display different patterns of both use and perceived misuse.” While all denominations view

being a drunkard bad. Religious denominations such as baptist for example, may perceive misuse

as 0-2 drinks, moderate views such as Methodist may view it as 2-4, and catholics may perceive

misuse with 5-6.

Religious groups were the ones who originally pushed to ban alcohol and were instru-

mental in the forming of temperance groups. Early on, (Levine and Reinarman. 2013 P 485)

“The use of drinking as a scapegoat explanation for social problems, which was so prominent in

nineteenth- and early twentieth- century temperance and prohibitionist rhetoric, is reproduced to-

9

day in antidrug campaigns.” It is currently being used in anti-marijuana campaigns and is still a

common argument in local option campaigns today. However, the views on alcohol have

changed greatly since Prohibition even among the dries. (Roizen. 2004. P 68) “The emergence of

a new array alcohol-related problems and associated moral-entrepreneurial interest groups also

signaled the re-heating shift as well as reflected something about problem focuses, social roots,

and value coordinates of the new sensibility.

Modern day temperance groups groups such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving,

RID (Remove Intoxicated Drivers), SADD (Students Against Drunk Driving) focus on regula-

tions and health problems primarily. (Roizen. 2004. P 70) The appearance of new problem fo-

cuses—notably, those aiming popular attention and opprobrium toward FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syn-

drome), drunk driving, youthful drinking, and alcohol violence – redirected the nation’s gaze

away from the alcoholism movement’s focus on the alcoholic.” This is interesting because not

even modern day temperance groups are in favor of an area being completely dry because of the

harmful side-effects that come with being completely dry. Focusing on responsible drinking and

regulation is the approach that is pushed.

Location is also central to examining alcohol policy. As my research previously stated

City voting and Precinct voting were not statistically significant, even though a higher percent-

age of city votes and precinct votes passed compared to the county level in Kentucky. This re-

search concurs with (Guthrie. 1995. P 28) “the wet-dry conflict as a simple urban-rural di-

chotomy fails to capture the pluralistic nature of the liquor controversy.” Also, as earlier men-

tioned (Scalen and Payne. 2011. P 65) “alcohol use is so extensive, systemic, and common the term

dry is a misnomer. The true effects of prohibition do not exist.” Because counties may restrict the pur-

chase of alcohol, the counties on their border may be wet and the travel time to purchase alcohol may be

10

incredibly short. However, (Zakocs. 2000. P 328) “Restricting alcohol availability at the local level

may be a plausible prevention strategy for several reasons. Light to moderate drinkers, rather

trhan alcoholics, are believed to contribute disproportionately to a community’s alcohol-related

problems. Curbing all community members alcohol consumption- not just consumption by the

heaviest alcohol abusers- may decrease alcohol related problems.”

Location is also directly related to DUI’s (Baughman, Conlin, Dickert, and Pepper. 2000.

P 6) “The number of alcohol-related driving accidents is directly related to the number of miles

driven under the influence of alcohol, which depends on: (i) the amount of alcohol consumed;

(ii) the travel distance required to obtain the alcohol; (iii) where the alcohol is consumed: and

(iv) what type of alcohol is consumed.” While a community is making the view of alcohol absent

from public eye, they are not necessarily making the roads safer. Also, because there are differ-

ent levels of alcohol content in beverages, what people are drinking can play a factor. Whiskey

will make a drinker inebriated before beer and wine will. (Baughman, Conlin, Dickert, and Pep-

per. 2000. P 16) “The sale of higher alcohol-content liquor presents a greater risk to highway

safety.” “It may be appropriate to differentiate between types of liquor sales, such as the federal

excise tax does, when designing policies to improve highway safety outcomes.”

During the election of 1928, when Al Smith ran against Hoover, (Hughes. 1988. P 135)

“Smith called for a state rights solution with Congress broadening the scientific definition of al-

coholic beverages, and permitting those states wishing to legalize light wines and beer, to do so,

because “the present definition is admittedly inaccurate and unscientific.” Smith understood that

prohibition was not working and was working towards a compromise of beer and wine only. This

was a political view that some southern Protestant ministers held prior to prohibition. This view

11

concurs with my research in concern to wineries, wineries are a statistically significant alcohol

measure that passes in Kentucky.

The role of the type of vendor is also crucial to the cause of DUI’s, (Baughman, Conlin,

Dickert, and Pepper. 2000. P 16) “The sales of alcohol for on-premise consumption is associated

with a sizable increase in alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents while the sale for off-premise

consumption may actually decrease expected accidents.” This is a phenomena that is puzzling

not because off-premise sales cause a decline in alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents but be-

cause of how local option voting is set up in Kentucky. There is no way to ban the sale of alcohol

in restaurants an LR-100 while having liquor stores which is a full wet vote. A vote for full wet

automatically allows LR-100, so it appears that this problem could only be fixed by having a

separate vote for package stores that do not include LR-100 in the alcohol policy.

Local option elections are only one aspect of controlling an areas alcohol policy. There

are, (Reynolds. 1984. P 3) “Three Aspects of Prevention” Government regulation, community

regulation, and business regulation. Government regulation uses alcohol control laws. (Ornstein

and Hanssens. 1985. P 201) “Alcohol control laws can be divided into three general (1) eco-

nomic legislation directed at raising revenues for the state and/or protecting sellers from compe-

tition, (2) attempts to control the social cost resulting from excessive drinking, and (3) attempts

to prevent production adulteration and false advertising.” So it is not necessarily that alcohol is

the problem completely, it is the rules that govern alcohol by locality that determine how to min-

imize the effects of alcohol through regulation. (Berman and Hull. 2001. P 82) “a number of re-

cent Alaska studies have associated strict community alcohol prohibition with a reduction in in-

juries and injury deaths.”

12

Community efforts are key to finding the solution to alcohol regulation by locality.

(JAMA. 2004. P 2341) “A coordinated, comprehensive, community-based intervention can re-

duce high-risk alcohol consumption and alcohol-related injuries resulting from motor vehicle

crashes and assaults. (Popova, Giesbrecht, Bekmurdadov and Patra. 2009. P 515) expands on this

topic concurring with (JAMA) “at a minimum, three actions: that there be no further initiatives to

increase access to alcohol; that the most effective interventions be implemented, reinforced and

evaluated; and that health and safety experts become central contributors to policy decisions that

impact alcohol management.” If the community does not engage with businesses that serve alco-

hol and comment on local government regulation of alcohol the potential result is hefty conse-

quences. Bars may operate in a way that community natives disapprove of, and in areas where a

drinking atmosphere may not be appropriate with the views of the community. And there may be

an increased risk in DUI’s.

In turn there is a response needed from the businesses and alcohol industry to engage

with the community and local government. (Reynolds. 1984. P 9) “The relationship between

proposals for prevention policies and the position of the alcohol beverage industry. There is a

strong temptation to see these interest as inevitably and diametrically opposed, to think that when

prevention policies gain force, the alcohol beverage industry has to take losses. There may be

hard truth to this view. All prevention policies, to be successful, may have to slice into the busi-

ness of the beverage-making and beverage-serving industry.) While, it may be profitable for bars

to operate into the late hours of the night, they are looking at an increased chance of DUI’s on

the road. Because as mentioned by (Baughman, Conlin, Dickert, and Pepper. 2000. P 16) “The

sales of alcohol for on-premise consumption is associated with a sizable increase in alcohol-re-

13

lated motor vehicle accidents while the sale for off-premise consumption may actually decrease

expected accidents.”

Conclusion:

This papers research found that smaller district sizes are not more likely to pass than

large ones, while votes in the city have a higher percentage of passing it falls short of statistical

significance. This is in concurrence of other political scientist who have studied alcohol by dis-

trict such as (Guthrie. 1995). Clearly, much more lies in alcohol views other than “rural vs. ur-

ban”. There are specific advantages of alcohol policy being restricted to city limits however. It

keeps alcohol in a controlled setting so it can better be regulated by law enforcement. Further-

more, it keeps money in the hands of the city government often where smaller communities have

a larger police force than the county.

Studying alcohol elections in Kentucky by alcohol type showed that Wineries and Golf

Courses/Country Clubs are statistically significant in likelihood to pass. The local option policies

for Kentucky seem to be in a catch-22 in regards to DUI’s, because communities tend to prefer

introducing alcohol in restaurants before liquor stores. However, (Baughman, Conlin, Dickert,

and Pepper. 2000) show that it is the restaurants that cause DUI’s to go up and liquor stores

might actually cause them to decrease. This seems to be problematic for the community to make

a good decision on the level of alcohol policy that they would like in hopes of reducing the social

ailments that come along with alcohol.

(Stockwell. 2004. P 1090) “Alcohol is one of the severest test of government’s will to

serve the public interest.” Getting alcohol policy right for a community is no easy task it takes a

great deal of planning between the community, restaurants, and local government. It is a aggra-

14

vated situation because of the sensitivity to alcohol with certain groups, largely religious. This

aggravation does not make it any easier to have coherent discussions on alcohol policy on the lo-

cal level. Unfortunately, local option races tend to be played dirty by both sides. And much gets

lost in translation so the citizenry is not always able to make a good decision on alcohol policy

because there are too many things they hear that contradict each other.

This paper helps the field of political science understand what elections are more likely to

pass and give some idea to what characteristics a community might have that would be prone for

expansion in alcohol. This is important so communities can safely grow with alcohol according

to their own specific needs. The discover of wineries and golf courses having a high success rate

of passing may be essential in expanding alcohol in a pragmatic way, would have less of an im-

pact on a community opposed to other measures such as LR-100 or Wet vote.

Limits of this study are largely in poorly documented data by county clerks which meant

some election data had to be thrown out. With that exception, my research concurs with other

scholarly works so Kentucky does not differ greatly in circumstance than other states with local

option territory. Further research is needed on the effects of wet surrounding counties that may

have on influence of public opinion on alcohol in a dry territory.

15

Annotated Bibliography

Bock, Cochran, Leonard Beeghley, 1987. “Moral Messages: The Relative Influence of Denomi-

nation on the Religiosity-Alcohol Relationship.” The Sociological Quarterly Vol.

28, No. 1, pp. 89-103 http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/4121422 (Accessed December,

5, 2012)

Carroll H. Wooddy and Samuel A. Stouffer. 1930. The American Journal of Sociology “Local

Option and Public Opinion” Vol. 36, No. 2 P. 175-205 http://www.jstor.org/stable/

10.2307/2766375 (Accessed February 26, 2013)

Cochran, Beeghley and E. Wilbur Bock. 1988. “Religiosity and Alcohol Behavior: An Explo-

ration of Reference Group Theory” Sociological Forum, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 256-276

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/684367 (Accessed December, 5, 2012)

Ford and Charles Kadushin. 2002. “Between Sacral Belief and Moral Community: A Multidi-

mensional Approach to the Relationship Between Religion and Alcohol Among Whites

and Blacks.” Sociological Forum, Vol. 17, No. 2. Pp. 255-279 http://www.jstor.org/

stable/10.2307/3070326 (Accessed December 5, 2012)

16

Gerber, Grumber, Daniel Hungerman. 2008. “Does Church Attendance Cause People To Vote?

Using Blue Laws’ Repeal to Estimate the Effect of Religiosity on Voter Turnout” Na-

tional Bureau of Economic Research. pp.125 http://www.nber.org/papers/

w14303.pdf?new_windo=1 (Accessed December, 5, 2012)

Harry G. Levine and Craig Reinarman. 2013. The Milbank Quarterly “From Prohibition to Regu-

lation: Lessons from Alcohol Policy for Drug Policy” Vol. 69, No. 3, Confronting Drug

Policy: Part 1 pp.461-494 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3350105

JAMA. 2004. The Journal of the American Medical Association “Effect of Community-Based

Interventions on High-Risk Drinking and Alcohol-Related Injuries” Vol. 284, No. 18 P.

2341-2347 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=193252 (Accessed Febru-

ary 26, 2013)

Kentucky Constitution. 1891, Section 61. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/ib59.pdf (Accessed

April 30, 2013)

John J. Guthrie Jr. The Florida Historical Quarterly. “ Rekindling the Spirits: From National Pro-

hibition to Local Option in Florida: 1928-1935.” Vol. 74 No. 1 pp. 23-39 http://www.js-

tor.org/stable/10.2307/30148787

M. Edward Hughes. 1988. The Florida Historical Quarterly “Florida Preachers and the Election

of 1928” Vol. 67, No. 2 pp. 131-146 http://www.jstor.org/stable/30147947

Mark H. Moore and Dean R. Gerstein. 1981. National Academy Press “Alcohol and Public

Policy: Beyond the Shadow of Prohibition” P. 3-463 (Book)

17

Matthew Berman and Teresa Hull. 2001. “Alcohol Control by Referendum in Northern Native

Communities: The Alaska Local Option Law.” Artic Vol. 54, NO.1 P.77-83

Ornstein and Dominique M. Hanssens. 1985. “Alcohol Control Laws and the Consumption of

Distilled Spirits and Beer” Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 200-213 http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf-

plus/254353.pdf?acceptTC=true (Accessed December 5, 2013)

Reagan Baughman, Michael Conlin, Stacy Dickert-Conlin, and John Pepper. 2000. Center for

Policy Research Working Paper No. 31 “Slippery When Wet: The Effects of Local Alco-

hol Access Laws on Highway Safety” P. 1- 32

Robert W. Brown, R. Todd Jewell. 1996. Southern Economic Journal “Endogenous Alcohol Pro-

hibition and Drunk Driving” Vol. 62, No. 4 pp. 1043-1053 http://www.jstor.org/stable/

1060947

Robert Reynolds. 1984. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism “Toward the Pre-

vention of Alcohol Problems Government, Business, and Community Action” P. 137-144

(Book)

Ron Roizen. 2004. University of Massachusetts Press. “How does the nation’s alcohol problem

change from era to era? Stalking the social logic of problem-definition transformations

since Repeal.” pp.61-87 http://www.roizen.com/ron/postrepeal.htm

Ronda C. Zakocs. 2000. Journal of Public Health Policy “Local Option Policies and Alcohol

Availability in North Carolina Counties” Vol. 21, No. 3 P. 328-341 http://

www.jstor.org/stable/3343330 (Accessed February 26, 2013)

18

Svetlana Popova, Norman Giesbrecht, Dennis Bekmuradov and Jayadeep Patra. 2009. Alcohol &

Alcoholism “Hours and Days of Sale and Density of Alcohol Outlets: Impacts on Alco-

hol Consumption and Damage: A systematic Review” Vol. 44, No. 5, pp. 500-516 pp.

500-516 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3350105

Tim Stockwell. 2004. Addiction “Lies, Damned Lies And No Statistics: A study of Dysfunc-

tional Democracy in Action” Vol. 99, Issue 9, P 1090-1091 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.-

com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00837.x/full (Accessed February 26, 2013)

Walt Scalen, Lee W. Payne. 2011. The Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice. “The Transition of

a Texas County from “Dry” to “Wet” and a Comparison of DWI Arrest Rates Before and

After” Vo. 8(1) pp. 59-66 http://www.swacj.org/swjcj/archives/8.1/Transition%20of

%20Texas%20County%20Dry%20to%20Wet.pdf

William Charles Ferrell Jr. 2005. “You Don’t Have To Go Home, But You Can’t Stay Here: Last

Call for the Local Option Law in Kentucky. Brandeis Law Journal, vol. 43 P. 115-

133