Episode 205: Saving Daylight, Saving Packies?

3/17/2022-- Happy St. Patrick's Day from all of us at The Horse Race! Steve and Jennifer discuss the return of the in-person St. Patrick's Day breakfast, happening this Sunday. It's an almost annual tradition of Massachusetts politicians gathering and making jokes at one another's expense for what Jennifer describes as "basically a big Irish roast."

Plus, big news coming out of the U.S. Senate-- a bill passed that would make Daylight Saving permanent, ending the ritual of turning the clocks forward and backward and gracing us all with an extra hour of daylight in the winter. The development has Sen. Ed Markey who proposed the bill "walkin' on sunshine."

The Census undercount also made headlines this week. So far the U.S. Census Bureau has only released the national numbers, but if the nationwide undercount scales down proportionately to the state level, what could that mean for Massachusetts? Boston Indicators' Luc Schuster drops by The Horse Race to answer that question and more. For one thing, Luc says, "It would mean we missed almost 47,000 Latinos living in Massachusetts."

Finally, Matt Murphy of the State House News Service explains the proposed changes to our liquor license laws, brought to lawmakers by the Massachusetts Package Stores Association. It would effectively double the number of allowable licenses any one retailer can hold to 18 by 2031, but also reduce the cap on licenses for the sale of all alcoholic beverages from nine to seven. But it faces severe opposition from many food industry groups.

Full transcript below:

Jennifer Smith: [00:00:25] Today on The Horse Race, we take a look at the U.S. Census undercount and a potential compromise on liquor policy. It's Thursday, March 17th. [00:00:33][8.1]

Steve Koczela: [00:01:03] Welcome back to The Horse Race, your weekly look at politics, policy and elections in Massachusetts. I'm Steve Koczelahere this week with Jennifer Smith. Our co-host Lisa Kashinsky is out this week, but as always here with us in spirit. And it is a huge holiday week here in the Boston region. It brings celebrations, celebratory drinking, everybody wearing green, of course, referring to evacuation day, which is celebrated today. [00:01:27][24.4]

Jennifer Smith: [00:01:28] Yes. I mean, today, as you hear this, we assume that you are getting absolutely hammered and miming the retreat of the British forces from Boston. There are handy signs posted everywhere. So, you know, no matter how much of that Irish whiskey you happen to consume. We hope you can find your way out. But wait, Steve, is there. Is there possibly another reason someone might be like celebrating today? [00:01:52][24.1]

Steve Koczela: [00:01:53] There is. From what we gather, we did a little bit of Googling and discovered that it is also St Patrick's Day today, and that that is actually this year kind of marked a return of some of the St. Patrick's Day celebrations and traditions that were put on pause during COVID. So Jen, this is an issue which you've been digging and doing some real on the ground citizen journalism. What is coming back this year that we've been missing? [00:02:17][23.4]

Jennifer Smith: [00:02:17] Yes, I have been reading the press releases about this, some real citizen journalism. [00:02:21][3.7]

Steve Koczela: [00:02:24] Come on, don't lift the curtain. [00:02:24][0.3]

Jennifer Smith: [00:02:26] I'm so sorry about that, too. All of our listeners who thought I was out there personally shaking Senator Nick Collins by the shoulders and demanding to know what was going on with the St. Patrick's Day breakfast. I was not. This is, however, speaking of the breakfast, the first back in person St. Patrick's Day breakfast in two years this weekend on the 20th on Sunday. There's going to be the normal bunch of kind of tomfoolery and songs that some people enjoy. And all of your political faves and the least political faves will be there to make some, you know, jokes at each other's expense. It's basically a big Irish roast. So this year you're going to see kind of the usual slate, but including Gov. Charlie Baker, attorney general and gubernatorial candidate Maura Healey, Mayor Michelle Wu, Rep. Ayanna Pressley and Rep. Stephen Lynch are all going to be making appearances live. And after you have watched everyone make fools of themselves for three hours, you can then go over to South Boston and watch people walk down a physical street once again because the parade is back again this year. [00:03:35][69.2]

Steve Koczela: [00:03:35] So that's that's, you know, warms my heart a little bit. I haven't been to the St. Patrick's Day in a while. Let's just say it. You know, it passed me by. In terms of the types of things that my family and I like to do a while ago, but I am very happy to see that that's coming back. And although I also don't really enjoy the St. Patrick's Day breakfast that much, I'm also happy to see that it's coming back just because it's, you know, kind of marks another step in our return to normal. So there we go. [00:04:01][25.2]

Jennifer Smith: [00:04:01] I like the idea, Steve, that you might be just sitting there watching it, heckling at home, as befits a family man of your stature. [00:04:08][7.6]

Steve Koczela: [00:04:10] I like parades. You know, I like St. Patrick's Day parades, but the one in South Boston, you know, the times that I have been just that kind of craziness is more that I have found that I want to do these days. I always found that a bit funny, that there were these disputes over what constituted, you know, basically people who could walk in the parade while representing family values, as though family values are represented in almost everything that happens at the St. Patrick's Day parade. Oh, absolutely. So anyway, that's a whole other topic that we can discuss. But for now, there's other big news. There is some things returning to normal, but a big departure from normal is a bill that passed the Senate just this week, and that is about Daylight Savings Time. Jenn, one of our senators here in Massachusetts, actually led this effort. Good old Ed Markey. So what happened? [00:04:58][47.4]

Jennifer Smith: [00:04:59] Yep, Ed Markey is, in his own words, walking on sunshine because the Senate passed a bill that he proposed along with Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who's who has been actively pushing for this for years as well to make daylight saving time permanent. So that means that, you know, we would have some winter hours sunlight. It might not suddenly look like the middle of the night at all of 4:00 p.m. for some of us out here, but namely a lot of the reason behind changing it is because the shift from normal hours to losing an hour isn't just kind of confusing for people. You know, it messes up your rhythms and all that. But it also does lead to, for instance, people being more tired when they're driving and they get into more car crashes. So there is sort of the funny idea of, Oh, you just want to not have to change your clocks twice a year, but there is also kind of a public safety element to it. So this is passed the Senate, it still has to get passed the House. And according to our colleague and co-host Lisa Kashinsky, most members of the Massachusetts delegation are in favor. [00:06:08][68.9]

Steve Koczela: [00:06:09] Yeah, the list that she provided includes Assistant Speaker Katherine Clark, Ayanna Pressley, Jake Auchincloss, Lori Trahan and Seth Moulton, all of whom have spoken out in favor. We'll wait and see where the rest of the delegation is, but something that we'll we'll be keeping an eye on. Jen, how do you feel about the potential gain of sunlight during winter afternoons? I know you're not always a person that loves the warm weather that's out there, Marty Walsh, you noted. But how about this? How has this change for you? [00:06:35][26.5]

Jennifer Smith: [00:06:36] I mean, I hate to lean into my stereotype and you know your your weird, paranoid theory that I might actually be a vampire. But there has been zero part of me that goes, Oh, I'd love it to be lighter for longer, but I'm happy for everyone else. I guess I'll be staying inside, I think. [00:06:54][18.6]

Steve Koczela: [00:06:55] All right. A little altruism there from Jenn, but we do have other big things to do today. What are we actually doing here? [00:07:02][6.6]

Jennifer Smith: [00:07:03] That's right. We do have other things to talk about aside from St. Patrick's Day and a little bit of sunshine. So first, we have Luc Schuster of Boston indicators talking about kind of distressing problems with the U.S. Census and what that might mean for Massachusetts. And then we're diving into another of the major ballot questions for November with Matt Murphy of the Statehouse News Service. And this one is about licensing for liquor sales. So shall we? [00:07:26][23.4]

Steve Koczela: [00:07:27] I'm saddled up and ready to go. Giddy up. [00:07:30][2.6]

Jennifer Smith: [00:07:31] I'm happy for you, Steve. [00:07:31][0.7]

Steve Koczela: [00:07:39] The U.S. Census Bureau issued the report this week on the size of the undercount in 2020. We turn our attention to this issue now with our guest, Luc Schuster. He joins us today from Boston Indicators, a research center at the Boston Foundation that's put out a number of reports on the U.S. Census. Luke, thank you for joining us again on the horse race. [00:07:58][18.1]

Luc Schuster: [00:07:58] Hey, Steve, thanks for having me back. [00:07:59][1.2]

Steve Koczela: [00:08:00] How serious were the undercount in the 2020 census and where specifically were they focused? [00:08:04][4.3]

Luc Schuster: [00:08:05] Yes, so big picture. The report found that the 2020 results are less accurate than the 2010 results. In aggregate, they estimated a total undercount nationwide of about negative 0.2 four percent. So not massive, but still somewhat troubling. But where the story gets more troubling is when you look at specific groups. Nationally, Native Americans living on reservations are the group that they think was most undercounted. Close behind is Latinos and then also African-Americans. There also are undercounted by other groups renters, younger adults, men. Also, there are other demographic groups that they think they miscounted in 2020. [00:08:46][41.0]

Steve Koczela: [00:08:48] Let's focus on the difference between the 2010 and 2020 census, for which groups specifically, did we see accuracy get worse? [00:08:54][6.8]

Luc Schuster: [00:08:56] So let's focus first on Latinos, because I think that's the group where there's the biggest concern. They estimate that nationally we undercounted Latinos by four point ninety nine percent, so basically five percentage points. This report only has national data. They're planning to release state level estimates this summer, but to give us a sense of what that might look like locally, if our state undercount matched proportionately that national undercount, it would mean that we missed almost 47000 Latinos living in Massachusetts, the next biggest undercount in terms of the larger racial groups. Again, Native Americans living on reservations are the biggest undercount of five point sixty four percent, but in total numbers, that's a smaller group. But looking at African-Americans, they estimate we undercounted African-Americans in the United States by three point three percent. So in Massachusetts, that would mean we missed almost 23000 black residents of our state. [00:09:54][58.1]

Steve Koczela: [00:09:54] And we 100 percent knew this was coming. Like, this is exactly how it looked as the census was being conducted. It's not as though the, you know, this report, you know, surface an issue that we didn't really know was anywhere in the data. But was it about as expected in terms of the size of the undercount or were people surprised? You know, with the actual, the actual numbers came out. [00:10:15][20.5]

Luc Schuster: [00:10:16] It's hard to it's hard to say because people's predictions in advance were just pretty, pretty general. I'd say I put the causes in a couple of categories. One is trends leading up to the count. So and you'll know this well, Steve. I mean, there's been a multi-year trend of just declining response rates to survey research generally. So there was concern for that well before the pandemic hit. Folks also probably know well about the Trump administration's proposed citizenship question, and even though that was struck by the courts, there's real reason to believe that might have sown some fear in responding to census takers, especially among Latinos. But then when the pandemic hit, it was just much harder to do the outreach that was planned. Initially, the Census Bureau was able to extend the outreach deadline by several months. But then at the last minute, the Trump administration shortened the window just as the critical door to door outreach was happening for four households that hadn't responded. So it was both sort of pre 2020 issues compounded by a really poor administration during a pandemic year that made it tough. One thing also flagged that there's a tiny silver lining, as 2020 was the first year that the census allowed people to fill out their form online. And there were a lot of concerns leading up to the count that there might be issues with the internet based approach, kind of like there were issues when HealthCare.gov was initially rolled out. But that actually went really well. The website never went down, and the initial self response phase of the 2020 census broke all previous records, so the initial self response period went really well. But where we failed was doing the follow up door to door responses after that. [00:11:57][101.7]

Steve Koczela: [00:11:58] And I think that's an issue just worth emphasizing, particularly that political interference that happened in the 2020 census because it just was not an accident, that the undercount rate went up specifically for Latinos. You know, you cited certainly the most prominent example as far as like what was done to try to make that happen. And, you know, now here we are. So you mentioned that there will be state estimates in the summer is that one will kind of know more about what the impact was here in Massachusetts. [00:12:22][24.7]

Luc Schuster: [00:12:23] Exactly. Yeah. So so the numbers I cited earlier about sort of the rough guess of what these undercounts might mean for Massachusetts are really rough. We'll have good, much firmer state numbers in the summer. And, you know, be happy to come back and talk about it out of you. All are interesting when we have that. [00:12:37][13.7]

Steve Koczela: [00:12:38] And just quickly remind people what is actually at stake here, I mean, this is far beyond an academic exercise is actually a lot at stake with census counts, right? [00:12:46][7.4]

Luc Schuster: [00:12:46] Yeah, I mean, you know, decennial census is used for a whole host of things for principally apportioning political representation in the United States. I don't think there's reason to think these undercount issues would have affected, you know, the number of congresspeople, for instance, that Massachusetts is getting, but it would potentially shift the political boundaries that have just been drawn for the next 10 years. The decennial census is also used for distributing billions of dollars in federal aid to states. A lot of that funding doesn't use these racial counts. So there's there's many ways in which I think this undercount, especially for Latinos and black residents, is troubling in some applications of the census. It won't skew the way the dollars are being distributed, but one place that's worth flagging that this has a real lasting effect is on all sorts of research that we do. I mean, I know amazing polling group right here all the time using census data to compare the sample that you were looking at to to see if you've got a representative group. And if we don't have good data on who the baseline population is, you're not going to. It's going to be tougher for you to to have a sense that the survey you're doing is representative. So this is going to be with us for the next 10 years and speaks to the importance of federal elections, especially around the decennial census period, because because we're stuck with these numbers for a decade. [00:14:08][81.7]

Steve Koczela: [00:14:09] Yeah, absolutely. We use those numbers just to be sure that our samples are representative, for instance. So I mean, we'll be taking a close look at those numbers that come out in the summer just to see what the impact might have been. But you know, we try to make things representative. We follow very closely what the Census Bureau does and says about what the population looks like. So, you know, this kind of undercount is a bummer for us, too. But for now, we will leave it there and come back to this issue this summer when we have a little bit more data. Luke Schuster of Boston Indicators of Research Center at the Boston Foundation. Thank you so much for joining us. [00:14:39][30.1]

Luc Schuster: [00:14:39] Thanks, Steve. [00:14:40][0.2]

Jennifer Smith: [00:14:42] A conflict between Massachusetts package store owners and food and convenience store owners involving a high profile ballot measure may have a compromise solution. Massachusetts packaged store owners just proposed a legislative change to liquor license law. So reporter Matt Murphy of the Statehouse News Service has kept a close eye on the action and is joining us now in the horse race to break it all down. Matt, welcome back. [00:15:05][22.5]

Matt Murphy: [00:15:06] Thanks for having me. [00:15:06][0.5]

Jennifer Smith: [00:15:07] So let's set the scene first. Why are the retailers and packaged stores in a fight over license limits? [00:15:14][6.2]

Matt Murphy: [00:15:15] Well, this actually goes back a few years when Cumberland Farms spearheaded an effort to get on the ballot with a question that would have created a new license for food stores to sell alcohol and would have allowed chains like Cumberland Farms and others that sell alcohol, as well as groceries and other products to have an unlimited number of licenses. This fell apart in the middle of the pandemic, as 2020 wore on and gathering signatures became very difficult. Cumberland abandoned that ballot question and decided this cycle and not to pursue another ballot question. They said instead that they were going to pursue a legislative remedy, and they have been trying to work with lawmakers to enact a bill that would look a lot similar to the ballot question that they had originally proposed. But in that void, the Package Store Owners Association stepped up with their own ballot question that they are offering as a compromise, at least one that they see as a compromise that would increase the number of licenses actually double the number of licenses that a single business entity can own over a number of years, from nine to 18. But it would also reduce the number of licenses that someone can hold to sell all alcoholic beverages versus just beer and wine from nine to seven. While they see this as a compromise. Cumberland Farms, the Massachusetts Food Association representing supermarkets, Whole Foods and a host of others, are opposing this as the Legislature has its window now to consider the proposal. [00:16:51][95.7]

Steve Koczela: [00:16:53] I feel like I need a flowchart already, even just hearing that description, you know, and the coverage that I've read about it, it's hard, I think, for the average layperson and which I will put myself in that category on this topic to understand the nature of the interest that everybody has in each side. So break it down for us in a simple elementary school terms, as you can. Who stands to gain what and why is there this? Why? Why are the sides drawn the way that they are on this? [00:17:20][27.7]

Matt Murphy: [00:17:21] Yeah, I think that's totally fair, Steve. And and part of the reason why over the years we've heard legislators balk at the idea of doing these sort of complicated policy. Solving is complicated policy questions through the ballot because, you know, they're kind of winner, take all, take it or leave it proposals and not a lot of room for nuance there. But you know, on one side, you have the food stores. Basically, I listed a bunch of different groups, but they all represent these larger businesses that sell food. Liquor sales are a part of their business, but certainly not the whole thing. And on the other side, you have the packaged store owners. These are tend to be smaller, independently owned businesses that sell nothing but beer, wine and alcohol. And they say they're looking to protect their turf against larger corporate interests from out of state and muscling into the Massachusetts market. You know, these sort of big-box stores, I mean, even think of a company like Wal-Mart, there's a convenience factor there where people go. They buy all kinds of goods, they pick up their wine or their beer for the weekend while they're buying their groceries. Well, this is eroding the package store's business. And there, I think here with their ballot question, they're offering some concessions, but they're looking to preserve a cap and not move to basically an uncapped system where these large chains can have as many licenses as they want market to consumers, they have much bigger budgets for that. And it would really put a strain on the package store industry. [00:18:51][90.1]

Jennifer Smith: [00:18:53] And so speaking of consumers, what is the consumer angle here? Is it sounds obviously like having an unlimited number of licenses would make it easier to kind of get whatever you want, wherever you want, but you have to balance that up against the interest of retailers package stores. So what's what's the consumer interest? [00:19:13][20.4]

Matt Murphy: [00:19:15] Yeah, I mean, if you're a consumer, I mean, there are certainly consumers, I think that like to support their local packy. They have a favorite favorite shop that they go to. Maybe they carry the kind of beer that they like or that bottle of wine and there's a relationship there that they like to patronize. But there are other consumers who like the one stop shopping aspect of some of these larger chains. They can also do better on. Price, and for some consumers, you know, they can run into situations where, you know, maybe you like to buy your alcohol at stop and shop, but because stop and shop is limited in the number of all alcoholic beverage licenses that they can hold in the state. Maybe the one closest to you doesn't actually sell beer and wine, and you'd have to travel further if you wanted to get that in your groceries or make a second stop. So there's a certainly convenience factor there. [00:20:08][53.4]

Steve Koczela: [00:20:09] OK, so we've got that basically then the battle lines, we've got the package stores on one side, we've got food stores and other larger national chains on the other side. So in that context comes this proposed solution that the Massachusetts Massachusetts Package Store Association proposed this week. How would that thread the needle or attempt to solve the problem that they're facing here? [00:20:30][21.1]

Matt Murphy: [00:20:31] Yeah. Well, they say that they're giving up additional licenses to these larger chains and bigger retail establishments by doubling the number from nine licenses that they can hold to 18. But there are some other things in there, like the reduction in all alcoholic beverage sales licenses and some consumer protections, or at least what the package store owners see as consumer protections, things like preventing self-checkout of alcohol sales. This would, you know, prevent, they say, you know, the sale of alcohol to to minors in other violations. But they would also not have to compete on the technology side with some of these bigger chains. [00:21:11][39.9]

Jennifer Smith: [00:21:12] And what's the reception to that been from food industry groups? Is this actually viewed as a compromise, or is it still an unacceptable win in their perspective? [00:21:20][8.3]

Matt Murphy: [00:21:22] Yeah, they still don't see this as something they want. And interestingly, this week, the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, which represents a lot of small Main Street businesses, you know, including small, independent stores that maybe sell groceries and food products as well. Gas stations you could put in this list came out against this, and they say the well they support. Increasing the cap, like the Pakistanis have proposed that there are, in their words, poison pills laced throughout this, and one of them happens to be a new fine structure proposed by the package store owners. That is particularly the abhorrent to the to the food industry. And these in these larger businesses that sell a variety of different products. [00:22:08][46.6]

Jennifer Smith: [00:22:09] What is that? What's that fine structure that actually causes that conflict or concern? [00:22:13][3.6]

Matt Murphy: [00:22:13] Yeah. So currently, if you get caught violating the terms of your liquor license, you're you're allowed to pay something called, you know, a fine in lieu of suspension. So rather than have your license suspended for a period and basically if you're a package store owner canceling out your entire business for perhaps several days, you can pay a fine. And currently that's based on gross receipts of alcohol sales so directly tied to the violation for selling alcohol products. The ballot question in the bill in front of the Legislature would expand that and actually make the fine of calculated based on gross receipts of all product sales. The package store owners say that this is the only way to make these larger stores that don't depend on alcohol sales for the bulk of their sales. Feel the pain and actually change their behavior and make sure that they're following alcohol rules and regulations when it comes to, you know, selling these regulated products. But, you know, the retailers and the other groups say that creating this bifurcated system with really no nexus to alcohol sales for these fines would be just too burdensome for them and doesn't make a lot of sense to them. [00:23:24][70.8]

Steve Koczela: [00:23:25] And you can imagine how that would be objectionable to, you know, large store, like you mentioned, Wal-Mart earlier, for instance, if they have to base their fine on the entire, you know, thousands of square feet worth of sales, that would certainly put them in a different situation than someone who was only selling alcohol. But what's next? Just in terms of the process, the Legislature considers this and what are the different things that could happen at that point? [00:23:49][24.7]

Matt Murphy: [00:23:50] Yeah. So because this is a proposed ballot question, the Legislature gets a crack at passing this before the proponents. In this case, the package store owners go up for one final round of signatures. They would need a over 13000 additional signatures to qualify for the November ballot, and the Legislature has until May 4th before the papers for that signature gathering effort to commence to act on this bill. Now, if the Legislature didn't act, they certainly have additional time beyond that deadline. We've seen it happen in the past that they take it later into the session as they work with proponents and opponents to try and strike a deal. And really, you're talking about later in the summer June, when signatures start to be submitted. A local clerks and finally, the secretary of state to actually qualify for the ballot, where that question is either going to get printed or not, and legislators will need to know whether or not they have a deal yet in place or if it's just going to go to the voters. [00:24:55][64.5]

Jennifer Smith: [00:24:55] And even if it does go to the voters, that doesn't take the Legislature entirely out of the equation, does it? [00:25:00][5.0]

Matt Murphy: [00:25:01] No, it doesn't. And we've seen this in the past. I can remember, I think, most recently, the the right to repair ballot question with regards to, you know, your telematics and car systems. This was qualified for the ballot. The Legislature at the last minute struck a deal and even though it was already printed on the ballots, all the groups agreed it was passed, signed into law and the proponents basically begged off, didn't fight for their ballot question and allowed voters to reject it in November. [00:25:32][31.7]

Steve Koczela: [00:25:33] And speaking further of questions like right to repair and this one where you have these very sort of technical, almost bewildering sets of changes which would happen or, you know, to the average person again putting myself in that category, how do you persuade people to vote for something like this? Like what are the what's the individual thing that's going to change, you know, right to repair that kind of takes that whole set of things and makes it easy to understand what is this? Is that, you know, vote for cheap vote yes for cheap booze or like, what's that? What's the the slogan here? [00:26:04][31.1]

Matt Murphy: [00:26:05] Yeah. I mean, I think the argument for this here from the package store owners is jobs and local business. It's that seeing that corner store that you've you're driven by your whole life. Do you want to see it go out of business because you're allowing the mega, the mega chain or the, you know, the total one and more or not to single them up or any other business like that, take away all the business and you'll see local storefronts closed. And perhaps, you know, people you've known and people who have worked at these businesses lose their jobs. I mean, that's I think the central argument here from the package store owners on the other side against it, it's it's convenience. And you know, why shouldn't you be able to get everything you need to one stop? Why is it artificially capped here by the Legislature? Why not just allow the market to control where people want to buy and what the prices will be? [00:26:59][54.1]

Jennifer Smith: [00:27:00] And thinking back to kind of similar discussions in 2006 and 2012? Was there anything informative about other efforts to change the kind of license cap process that you're watching for, as this kind of moves through both the hearing discussions and also a potential ballot campaign? [00:27:17][17.6]

Matt Murphy: [00:27:18] Yeah. Well, this you know, this issue isn't new. And you know, we mentioned earlier how legislators are sometimes reluctant if they can reach a deal with the parties involved, sometimes reluctant to let these kind of nitty gritty questions go to the ballot because it's not really like a philosophical debate here. I mean, most people aren't going to understand the difference between nine all alcoholic beverage licenses and seven. But this actually did go to the ballot once before, and it was defeated. And then in 2000, 11, 12, around then the food stores came back. I'm sorry. Well, this question did a similar question. The food stores had proposed lifting the cap, completely allowing beer and wine sales at supermarkets that was defeated six years later. They were threatening to go back to the ballot, and legislators struck a deal that we're now seeing a proposed amendment to, and that deal involved increasing from three to nine the number of all alcoholic beverage licenses that any one establishment could hold. Now you're seeing the package stores say, Hey, hey, hey, let's go back on that 10 year old law, which actually only went into effect fully in 2020. That was the first time that nine licenses were available to one business entity, saying, Hey, let's let's ratchet that back to seven now. So some of the opponents are kind of feeding off that and saying to lawmakers, Hey, wait a minute, you guys passed this thing in 2011. Why do you want to go back on it now? We haven't even seen if it's going to work yet. [00:28:55][96.5]

Jennifer Smith: [00:28:55] So if this were to happen, if it were to pass legislatively or if the ballot measure were to pass. Where does that put Massachusetts in comparison with other states, for instance, where sometimes often an outlier in the region and in other states when it comes to how we deal with liquor licensing and, you know, alcohol policy? [00:29:15][20.4]

Matt Murphy: [00:29:16] Yeah. [00:29:16][0.0]

Matt Murphy: [00:29:17] You know, Rob Malley on the executive director director of the Package Store Association actually brought this up. And you know, Massachusetts is somewhat unique, but not alone in the country in that it has this three tier liquor license distribution system where you have the producers, the people who make the alcohol and the beer, then you have distributors and then you have the retailers will. He says that among states that have systems like this, Massachusetts already offers way more licenses than their, you know, fellow states, where most of them offer Max three to five all alcoholic sail licenses. So he says, you know, going from nine to seven. Not a big, not a big penalty here, given what these companies face in other states. [00:30:05][48.1]

Jennifer Smith: [00:30:05] And is that true kind of across the board of the proposals that they're looking at here? We've mentioned a few different components of it, including, you know, self-checkout provisions, the fine structures. So when we talk about the the big takeaway, if you see this at your ballot, on your ballot, if it's being discussed by your representatives, is this more being framed as a question of this is probably not going to impact you and your daily consuming life, with the exception of there being a small parking near you that you can go to or there's just kind of, you know, more availability? Or is this being phrased as this is going to have a massive impact on a Massachusetts shopper consumer's experience as opposed to if you decide to take a short drive up to New Hampshire? [00:30:57][51.9]

Matt Murphy: [00:30:59] Yeah, this is really being pitched as an extension of the status quo. The package store owners are saying, Hey, we have a set of rules here. We play by them. They're working right now. We're willing to lift the cap a bit to give the some of these other businesses and larger stores additional room there to to sell product and to sell more alcohol. But in the grand scheme of things, they want to preserve their sliver of the marketplace and they say, let's not disrupt what has been working for consumers. We have our loyal customers. They have theirs. They're going to give a little on the on the license side and move on. The food stores are really seeking a much, perhaps more drastic change here and creating a brand new license for food stores with the potential to have unlimited number of licenses for their types of businesses. And there is where the packaged store owners see the danger that they're trying to avoid here with this ballot question. [00:31:58][59.5]

Steve Koczela: [00:31:59] And that food store proposal, though, is not one of the ones that's currently under consideration. This is the one that came up and then kind of went away over the last couple of years. Yeah. [00:32:08][8.4]

Matt Murphy: [00:32:08] Well, there is a bill, though, because Cumberland Farms decided this cycle the 2021 22 cycle, they weren't going to come back after the COVID ballot question effort got abandoned. They decided they weren't going to come back. They were going to work with the Legislature. There is actually a bill filed that would accomplish what they want, and they say they're focused on working with the Legislature on that now. It does seem like there's room for compromise. Certainly, Cumberland Farms and these other groups could have gone back to the ballot. They have the money to do it. So, you know, if if legislators in the Consumer Protection Committee led by Representative Tech Chairman Senator Schumer ran from the Cape can bring people together. There could be room for a deal here. But on the other on the flip side, you have, you know, John Hurst from the Retailers Association warning that, you know, if if this were to get to the ballot and it were to pass, that's not potentially the end of this. If the food stores don't agree because they could come back in two years and pursue their uncapped food license measure in a whole nother round of ballot questions. So, you know, there's a lot of different ways this could play out. The Legislature could strike a deal, this could go to the ballot and we'll have to see if it passes or not and where that goes or if legislators opted not to take this up. And we've seen this happen before. Marijuana comes to mind the legalization. You could run into a situation where the Legislature is like, Oh, wait a minute, we didn't address this, but we're not really sure that we like the outcome. We're going to go, do we have to go back and maybe rewrite this and maybe create a whole new structure after the ballot question past? You know, leaders will tell you that they don't like to do that after the will of the voters has been stated. But on these technical policy questions like we saw with marijuana legalization, they have shown a willingness if if they want to go in and kind of rewrite the rules of the game after the fact. [00:34:11][123.4]

Jennifer Smith: [00:34:12] All right. Well, we will see if we end up in some sort of Groundhog Day situation on that. But that is all the time we have for today. So Matt Murphy with the State House news service. Thank you so much for walking us through it. [00:34:23][10.6]

Matt Murphy: [00:34:23] Thanks for having me, guys. [00:34:24][0.6]

Steve Koczela: [00:34:27] And that brings us to our final segment of the week, the Pony Express. So this week, in light of recent development, which is what the script says and which Libby wrote, So I'm not taking responsibility for this pun. I asked Twitter. About daylight savings, and I said I've decided the solution to the statewide, statewide daylight shortage is to move Massachusetts closer to the equator. Where should we relocate? Basically, people have been arguing over whether or not it should be dark in the morning or dark in the evening. I've just decided we should move the whole state entirely, so got some pretty good responses to that. Off the coast of Florida was one that would save some Bay Staters, a lot of money, a little dig there. I think even some politicians who spend a lot of time down there, Ryan Grannon-Doll said Oops. Wrong direction Australia, Bermuda, the Caribbean, where some other responses. And then I think my favorite one was from Jacob Edelman. He basically took a map and extended the western border of Massachusetts all the way southwest through the United States to Southern California. So basically, the whole thing becomes what he calls Megachusetts. And he says under megachurch sits will easily achieve increased daylight savings in some areas without the need to get into historic preservation and relocation fight. So I think that's genius. [00:35:39][72.1]

Jennifer Smith: [00:35:40] I like the idea that maybe we put the entire state of Massachusetts on a giant train or something and just shimmy it along the spine of mega sets so that you always have maximum sunlight for those who want it. And I'll just stay camped out here in a little tent. [00:35:54][13.9]

Steve Koczela: [00:35:55] That's an even better idea. I hadn't even thought of that, just like shifting the whole infrastructure back and forth, like throughout the year or week or year. [00:36:01][6.2]

Jennifer Smith: [00:36:02] You know, if anyone has ever relocated a house from its foundation but an entire state, I'm sure that'll go smoothly. [00:36:08][6.1]

Steve Koczela: [00:36:08] Yeah, lots of practical ideas there. Lots to think about. Be sure to contact our legislators and see what we can do about making this happen. [00:36:15][6.5]

Jennifer Smith: [00:36:16] But that is all the time we have for today. I am Jennifer Smith here with Steve Koczela. Don't forget to leave us a review. Wherever you're hearing us now, subscribe to Lisa's Massachusetts Politico Playbook and Ping the massing polling group for polls. Thank you all for listening, and we'll see you next week. [00:36:16][0.0]

[2050.2]