Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

QBfiiceof ttp Bttornep Qkneral &ate of Qtexas DAN MORALES ATTORNEY GFNERAL hme 16.1993 HonorableDebraDanburg OpinionNo. DM-229 chair commmwonElwtions Ik WbetheraproposulCiiofHouuon TexasHouseof~ odhanw, which would require that P.O. Box 2910 U&XIlSbeaVailablCforS?ilCiflYXLS&SS Au&q Texas 78768-2910 premises upon which alcoholic bewages are sold fbr on-premkes consumption,” is prranpted by state law t-m-522) You ask whether an ordimnx da consideration by the Cii of Houston (the ‘city”), which would require that condoms be availablefor sale in “businesspremiss upon which alcd~~lic bevemges are sold for on-premises wnsumption,” is preempted by state law. Withyour~~,yoYhaveru~acoWofthepropoxdordirwce. The proposed ordinands preamble states that its pIllPose is to reduce the rbik oftransmission of~ytransmined~includingthehumM~~~arcyvinrs(”HIv”),by infa7Gngtheavai&lhyofcxmdoms. ~,businesspraisesuponwhich alwholic beverages are sold for on-prankes consumption are the focus of the proposed , ordimmce because “among the major wntrii &ctors of tmnsmkion of sexually trammined disases are c3sual intupersonal relationships and poor jud@nents Elated to the influenw of alcohol.” TheproposedordinamxwouldrequireVheownerandprincipalmanagerofa business premises upon which alwholic bewages me sold for on-prank consumption [to] make high quality latex condoms available upon its premk in one of the following mamms,” which in&de offbring condom for sale at a sales counter or through win- operated machines in restrooms. The proposed ordimmce would also require the owner L’.2~ticipal manager of such a bus&s to ‘wntinuously display signs io each restroom to which any member of the public has access setting forth infomtion concerning HIV mdotharanrallytrrrnsmitteddi~Mdthebenefitsofthe~ofcoadomswith language provided by the Cii of Houston Health and Human Suvices Department.” Violation of either of these provisions would wnstitute a misdemeanor, but would “not p. 1187 HonorableDebmDanburg - Page 2 @It-229) afkct a license or permit granted under the provisions of the Texas Awholic Beverage code.“’ The Cii of Houston is a home-nde city. The Texas Constitution gmnts such cities all the power of self-governmentnot qressiy denied them by the legislature. Tar. Const. att. XI, 0 5; h&as Merchnt’s & CanccsFonotrec’Ash s v. Ci@ of Dal&s, 36 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 742,743 (April 10, 1993). The Texas Constitution prohibits a home-rule city 6om ettfbrcing any legklation kmskknt with state laws or the state wnstkution. Tex. Const. art. XI, 8 5; Lb&s Merchant’s & Clmcessionoire’s Ash, 36 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. at 743 (citing Ci3, of&ooksi& W&e v. tlFomou, 633 S.W.Zd 790, 7% (Tex. 1982). cerr. denied, 459 U.S. 1087 (1982)). The Texas Supreme Court has instructed thst, in detamirriagwhetha~ordinrnai~yinconsistwtwithrtatt~wonthesamermbject Mtter,courtsmustreeLtow~thetwoinawaythatwilllcanbothineffea, possiile. Civ ofRichr&m v. Retpomdble Dog Owners of TB, 794 S.W.Zd 17, 19 (Tex. 1990). “[Tlhe mere &ct that the legkkure has enacted a law addressing a subject does not mean the complete subject matter is completely preempted.” Id Moreover, it is well esmblishai that “if the Legislature chwses to preempt a subject matter ustdly encompassed by the broad powers of a home-nrle city, it must do so with um&akab clarity.” Lbl&s Mwchmt’s & Concem’mire’s AssIn, 36 Tar. Sup. Ct. J. at 743 (cit$ Ci~ofSweetwter v. Gem, 380 S.W.Zd550,552 (Tex. 1964)). The Alwltolic Beverage Code contains a preemption provision, section 109.57.’ which provides in pertknt part: (a) Except as is expressly authoked by this code. a regultttion. chatter, or ordbmnw promulgated by a govemmentalentityofthis state may not impose stricter standad on praises or businesses ~tfedhtve~lio~ y permit under this cod! than are imlx~=I busnessesthatarenotreqmredtohavesucha liwnseorpennit. @) It is the intent of the legislature that this code shsll exclusively govern the regukion of alwholic bevcsages in this state, p. 1188 HononbleDduaDanbug - Page 3 W-229) andthatexceptaspermittedbythiscod~agovallmmtrlentityof thisstatemaynotdi&mirWeagainstabusbmssboldingalicenseor pamitunderthiswde. Ah. Bev. Code 8 10%57(a),(b). The question befbre us is whether this provision would preanpttheproposedoldinam. In a recent opinion,hllizs Merclmnt’s d Cmcessim’re’s Associatim, the Texas Stpret~~~Court wnsidered whether section 109.57 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code prwmpta a home-tule city ordinatm prohibitingthe sale of alcoholic beverages within 300 fbetofaresidunialarea Intbatopinio~thecourtstated,“TbeL&kure’sintais dearly eqmssed in section 109.57(b)of tbe [Alwholic Beverage Code)-the mgulation of alwholic bwaages is ctxcbiwly govemed by the provisions of the [Alcoholic Beverage CQde]unless otherhe provided. . . . section 109.57 clearly preempts an ordmance of a home-rule city that regulates where alwholic beverages are sold under most W.” 36 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. at 744 (citation and footnotes omitted). The want also noted that section 10957(a) provides that an ordinance may not impose stricter standds on alcohol related btkumes than on non-alwhol related businesses: For exsmple, under section 109.57(a). an ordhmnce requiring all businesseswiththesamekindofpremisestohaveaSreextinguisher on their premise would not violate section 109.57(a). On the other hand,anordkrcemquiringanalwholrelatedbushmsstohavetwo Sre extb&hm and only resuit[mg) a non-alwhol rebrted business withtheaamekindofpmnisestohaveone6reexting&erwould violate section 10957(a). Id. at 745 11.5.3 Subsection (a) prohiii a city from adopting an ordinance imposing “stricter Madardronpnmisesorbusimapesnquindtohavealicaureorpamit...thMarr impo~on~arpnmisesorbusinauesthatannotrequindtohavesuchalicaueor perflit.” It eapmses with “um&akable clarity”the IegiskuA intent to preempt such ordmnws We apprwiate the city% dfott to reduce the tran&mion of sexually trammhteci disases by encouraging the use of condoms and distributing educational material. The Texas Supreme Court’sinterpretation of subsection (a) of section 109.57 in Dab Merchnt’s & Cmcessionaire’s Association, however, wmpels us to condude that the proposed oniinamx would be preempted. The proposed odinan& justification for rqubing busmess premises upon which alwholic beverages are sold for on-premks wnsumption to make wndoms for sale is p. 1189 Hooorable Debra Danburg - Page 4 (DM-229) thatthe~mceofrtcobolcontributestothetraarmisdonof~tnrnsmitted dimses. Itir~rttheK~~lclybecauKtheyrdllrlcoholforo~pmnises wnsumption. It does not require other businesses which might contribute to the trtmmkion of sexuaUytrausmitted diseases, and are therefbre “similar businesses”for pqosesofthepmposedordinaace,tomakewndomsavaiiableforsale. Webelievethis iP~LOdiffQent”~OrdiarnarequiringrnrlWhOlnlatedbusinesstohavetwofite . . amngrushas and only requ@bgj a non-alcohol related business with the same kind of prut&estohaveone6reext@uWfwhichtheTexasSupremeCouitsu~estedwould violate section 109.57(a). Id. Beausetbe~ord&ncewouldimpose’stricterstandmdsonpremksor btlsimMnquiredtohaverlicenseorpumit.. . thanareimposedonsimilarprunisesor buriaessesthat~notrequindtohaveruchati~or~~”wemurtwncludet would be preempted by subsection (a) of section 109.57 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code as construed by the Texas Supreme CouR4 SUMMARY A proposed City of Houston ordiinance.which would quire “bmdwss premise upon which alcoholic beverages are sold for on- prrmi= consumption”to make wndoms available for sale, would impose “stricter standads on premks or busbmssesrequired to have alicenseorperrnit.. .t.hanareimposedonaimilarpremksor businessesthatarenotrquiredtohavesuchrlicenseorpamit, contrary to subsection (a) of section 109.57 of the Alwholic Beverage Code, and would therefore be preempted by state law. DAN MORALES Honorable Debra Dmburg - Page 5 W-229) WILLF’RYOR MARYKELLER Deputy Attomey &nerd for Litigation RENEAHICKS State Solicitor. MADELEINEB. JOHNSON Chsir, OpinionCommittee p. 1191