Page 578
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 579
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 580
APPEAL
FROM THE WHITE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 73CV-17-502],
HONORABLE CRAIG HANNAH, JUDGE
David
Brennan, pro se appellant.
Colin
Jorgensen, Association of Arkansas Counties, for appellee.
Opinion
BART F.
VIRDEN, Judge
David
Brennan challenges the White County Circuit Courts order
dismissing his request for declaratory judgment regarding the
constitutionality of the White County ordinance prohibiting
the manufacture and sale of alcohol and the
"local-option" set forth in Arkansas Code Annotated
sections 3-8-801 to -811. We affirm.
I.
Relevant Facts
On
September 11, 2017, Brennan filed a complaint in the White
County Circuit Court requesting that the court determine the
constitutionality of the local-option framework allowing
White County citizens to vote to prohibit the manufacture and
sale of alcoholic beverages. In his complaint, Brennan
asserted that the local-option framework is unconstitutional
on its face and violates his substantive due-process rights;
namely, his right to contract and association. Brennan, who
lives in Searcy, asserted that he wishes to apply for a
liquor license and open a package store in his home town,
that he wants to consume alcohol at restaurants in Searcy,
and that he would like the option to purchase alcohol at
stores without having to travel outside his county. Brennan
contended that prohibition of the sale of alcohol in White
County negatively affects his ability to safely travel along
the county highways, and he suffers an "unnecessarily
increased risk of being involved in an alcohol-related, fatal
crash." Brennan also argued that in dry counties,
drug-related crime constitutes a greater threat to the public
than in counties where the sale of alcohol is legal.
White
County filed a motion to dismiss Brennans complaint, arguing
that the local-option framework is constitutional as a matter
of law. Brennan responded to the motion to dismiss,
contending that there is no governmental purpose furthered by
the local-option framework. Brennan urged the circuit court
to apply the heightened level of scrutiny provided for in the
Arkansas Constitution to determine the constitutionality of
the statutes. White County countered Brennans argument by
explaining the myriad government interests served by the
local-option laws, including the promotion of public health,
reduction in crime and related law-enforcement costs,
increase in worker productivity, and reduction of health-care
costs. White County also asserted that under either the
Arkansas Constitution or the federal Constitution, the
rational-basis test is the appropriate test for ascertaining
the constitutionality of the statutes.
On
April 24, 2018, the circuit court entered an order dismissing
Brennans complaint. The circuit court determined that White
Countys local-option ordinance and the statutory framework
allowing the local option are subject to the rational-basis
test under the due-process provisions of both the Arkansas
Constitution ...