“Bootleggers” and “Baptists” vs. Walmart: Reshaping the Alcohol Policy Landscape in Arkansas’s Sebastian and Crawford Counties

Abstract

Just over ninety years ago, the twenty-first amendment was ratified, which officially put an end to “prohibition”. With this being said, even after seeing many ways in which the Volstead Act failed, there are numerous counties around the country that are “dry” today, meaning within county lines, the manufacturing, distribution and sale of all forms of alcohol are prohibited. Due to the initiation of Arkansas’s Act 1 of 1942, which gave counties in Arkansas the option to go dry, Arkansas houses far more dry counties than any other state today. Two counties, Sebastian and Crawford, are a large part of Arkansas’s Fort Smith Metropolitan area. While downtown Fort Smith is in Sebastian County, the metropolitan area’s largest suburb, Van Buren, is in Crawford County. One big difference between the two is their difference in policy when looking at alcohol sales and distribution, as while Sebastian County allows for the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages, Crawford county does not. This paper uses a cumulation of information gathered from interviews, primary research, and secondary research to gain a better understanding of the best way to proceed in attempting to balance the preferences of stakeholders involved. This leads to my overall argument that historical precedent of alcohol policy in Arkansas has created an institutional lasting power that favors the status quo. As it stands today, the signature threshold necessary to ignite a dry versus wet election within each of Arkansas’s specific counties is simply too significant to overcome. In this case, Crawford County is missing out on a significant amount of potential revenue. In addition, the need to travel further distances in order to obtain these beverages is a potential safety risk. In order to best balance the preferences of modern day stakeholders, change is necessary.