Interstate reciprocity and wine shipping

[Jenise]

I have purchased wine from all over the place since moving to Washington state, and not until I went to place an order the other day at Wine Library have I encountered a problem. They do not ship to Washington. Suddenly the words "reciprocal state" entered my head. Until now, it's just a term I've heard used and often in reference to those states that are, ahem, more conservative than the places I've chosen to live.

So now I want to know, what does 'reciprocal state' really mean? And what has Washington ever done to New Jersey?

Perhaps this is a recent development

Mark Lipton

Interstate reciprocity means that you can ship to my state if I can ship to yours. If I'm not mistaken, the U.S. Supreme Court dissed reciprocity in Granholm and, while I'm not sure that their displeasure in this case has the force of law, it expect it soon will. Perhaps someone here more familiar with Granholm than I can elaborate.

Meanwhile, interstate shipping is very much in flux and likely to remain so for some time.

[Jenise]

Interstate reciprocity means that you can ship to my state if I can ship to yours. If I'm not mistaken, the U.S. Supreme Court dissed reciprocity in Granholm and, while I'm not sure that their displeasure in this case has the force of law, it expect it soon will. Perhaps someone here more familiar with Granholm than I can elaborate.

Meanwhile, interstate shipping is very much in flux and likely to remain so for some time.

I presume it applies to more than wine? We have New Jersey may want, but certainly not the other way around.

[Robin Garr]

Suddenly the words "reciprocal state" entered my head.

I think Allan is right: Granholm blew reciprocity away because, by definition, it sets up disparate agreements under which states are treated unequally for purposes of interstate shipping.

The Wine.com scandal is intriguing, too, although I've been watching it with some doubt because I'm skeptical about some of the sources involved.

I presume it applies to more than wine? We have New Jersey may want, but certainly not the other way around.

Jenise, chiming in with the others, "reciprocity" as it was previously known applied strictly to wine. As I remember it, it started with a California law that said, in effect, that California residents could freely accept wine shipments from any state that similarly accepted wine shipments from California. A band of states that eventually grew to thirteen or fourteen passed such laws, including most of the West and a scattering of states elsewhere. I don't remember if NJ was on it but I remember Colorado and West Virginia were. Granholm put an end to that, as I understand it, by forbidding states from forming what amounted to a free-trade club (the court's view of the reciprocal arrangement) because it discriminated against shipments from states not in the club. Also - I'm not sure if this was part of Granholm - state can't favor in-state wineries over those in other states.

The state of Washington chose to comply with these rulings by requiring wineries from outside the state to register in Washington as a winery (with a fee, of course), collecting WA sales tax on shipments and filing other periodic paperwork reporting wine shipments. California (and I'm sure other states) have implemented similar new laws. As a consequence I know of CA wineries that no longer ship to WA and vice versa. On the other hand, I still have some wineries (who shall remain nameless) that ship to me, apparently without complying. I don't know how all of this affects wine retailers as opposed to wineries but my guess is you may have finally run into someone who is observing the new WA laws and doesn't want to deal with the red tape.

FWIW, (The) New Jersey (mob) cut Granholm off at the pass. In July '04, New Jersey forbade both intrastate and interstate shipping of wine alike. Prior to that law, wine could be shipped intrastate in New Jersey. The Garden State Winegrowers Association just kind of rolled over and died without a battle. In an e-mail exchange I had with them, they indicated that they were afraid of reprisals from the State Attorney General's Office in the form of subpoenas, inspections, license reviews, etc. Wine can, however, still be shipped to your New Jersey doorstep ... basically by licensed retailers who have a presence in New Jersey, thus preserving the three tier system in all of its transfigured glory. At least I think that's the way it goes. It's been a while. Bob Ross can probably clarify.

Interstate reciprocity means that you can ship to my state if I can ship to yours. If I'm not mistaken, the U.S. Supreme Court dissed reciprocity in Granholm and, while I'm not sure that their displeasure in this case has the force of law, it expect it soon will. Perhaps someone here more familiar with Granholm than I can elaborate.

I haven't read the ruling, but I can guess what they ruled. It's the same thing I would have said if I were on the Supreme Court.

The US Constitution's "commerce clause" grants the power to regulate interstate commerce to Congress, not the individual states. This was done specifically to prevent the protectionist regulations and tariffs that had been erected during the days of the Articles of Confederation. But then we have the amendment granting states the right to regulate sale of alcoholic beverages. Over the years, the courts have developed the concept of the "dormant commerce clause"--the states' powers to regulate alcoholic beverages within their borders are limited, in that they must apply equally to in-state and out-of-state sources, and not discriminate in favor of one over the other.

If I were on the Supreme Court, I'd take the view that the reciprocity laws violate the commerce clause. It's perfectly OK to say that I want my state to be dry, or to set up an in-state regulatory mechanism for booze. As long as all players in the game are subject to the same rules, regardless of where they're located. Saying "I'm only allowing in your state's booze if you allow in ours" is a blatant violation of the commerce clause and is unconstitutional. It's two states setting up private treaty arrangements, and that ain't allowed.

The State of Washington is free to decide for itself what rules it wishes to employ for sale of alcoholic beverages. That can be anywhere from "none at all" to "only via the state" to "only via licensed wholesalers and retailers" to "anything goes". But any such law has to apply equally to all players, regardless of where they are located geographically. You can't discriminate between in-state and out-of-state producers/distributors, nor can you decide to accept one group of states and ban another as sources for import.

-Paul W.