About three dozen small Alabama towns and cities may see alcohol sales - and the tax revenue - dry up after the state's top court on Friday overturned a 2009 law that had allowed them to conduct wet-dry referendums, attorneys said.

"The ones that got involved in this (alcohol sales), they took risks .... They'll just have to stop the sales," said Eric Johnston, attorney for two Blount County pastors who appealed a Blount County judge's ruling allowing towns in that county to vote.

John Neiman, chair of the appellate practice group for Maynard Cooper & Gale, stated in an email response to questions from AL.com that the Alabama Supreme Court struck down the entire statute, "which suggests that the ruling applies in all the other towns, not just Blount County."

"The Court recognizes that those other towns have held elections, but indicates that for "wet" elections to be valid, the Legislature needs to 'redraft a constitutionally sound law.'" Neiman wrote. "The Court theoretically could limit today's decision in some future case, saying that it applies only to future elections, not to elections that happened before today's decision. But the opinion issued today offers no hint that the Court actually will take that route."

Alex Smith, attorney for the city of Oneonta called the decision "stunning."

"It takes away the will of the people," Smith said.

Smith said they still have some appellate options, including asking for a re-hearing, that would delay implementation of the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling.

Among those taking notice of Friday's ruling is the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which has stores in some of those towns.

A spokesman for the ABC said late Friday afternoon that they don't plan to take any action in response to the ruling for 18 days.



Dean Argo, ABC's Government Relations Manager, said the Board and their legal team based their decision to delay action on Alabama's Rules of Appellate Procedure, which state that "the certificate of judgment of the court shall issue 18 days after the entry of judgment unless the time is shortened or enlarged by order."



Argo said because the high court did not issue the final certificate of judgment immediately in their Friday ruling, the Board believes the court intended to give all parties involved time to react.



Argo said the Board hopes that in the next 18 days, one of the parties involved will ask the court for a re-hearing and see a stay put on Friday's decision. Another option, Argo said, is quick affirmation from the state legislature that the cities in question are legally allowed to sell alcohol. The legislature goes back to session next Tuesday.

The Alabama Supreme Court's decision came as part of its ruling in that Blount County case in which Oneonta and smaller towns wanted the right to vote on alcohol sales.

In 1984 the Alabama Legislature enacted a law that allowed cities with populations of 7,000 or more within "dry" counties - where alcohol sales are not allowed - to hold votes on whether alcohol sales should be permitted within their borders. In 2009 legislators lowered the town size to populations of 1,000 or more, but excluded municipalities within Blount, Clay, and Randolph counties. (Randolph County has since voted to go wet.)

Since the 2009 law was passed about three dozen small Alabama towns have voted to go wet.

Oneonta and other towns in Blount County challenged their exclusion from the 2009 law. Oneonta and several other towns in Blount County voted for alcohol sales after a judge upheld the law but ruled they should not have been excluded.

The Alabama Supreme Court, however, reversed that ruling with Friday's opinion.

The Alabama Supreme Court in Friday's opinion ruled that the exclusion of the three counties from the 2009 law violated the Equal Protection Clause. The exclusion "was not rationally related to the regulation of alcohol because no basis existed for excluding smaller cities within those three counties from participating in a "wet" or "dry" election and allowing smaller cities in the remaining 64 counties to do so."

However, the Alabama Supreme Court in it opinion stated that just editing the three counties from the 2009 law was not allowed because it "would be to undermine the clear intent of the legislature."

"They (the court) vindicated everything we said all along," Johnston said.

Johnston said the ruling means all the towns of 1,000 to 7,000 that allowed sales since the 2009 laws was passed will now have to give up sales until the legislature passes a valid law. Cities of 7,000 or more are not affected, he said.

Johnston said that he had previously warned that those starting alcohol sales did so at their own risk. Also, the legislature at one point had asked the Alabama Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on the law, which legislators ignored, he said.

"They (towns) did it knowing this (2009) law was defective. ... They should not complain now about losing money, spending money," Johnston said.

"If the law is passed properly nobody can object," Johnston said.

Smith said he thought Blount County Circuit Judge Steven King had it right by just approving the removal of the wording of the 2009 law that excluded the three counties. "I don't see why you can't take six words out of an unconstitutional law and fix it for everyone," he said.

Even if the legislature passes a new bill it's likely that the towns would have to have another vote on the issue because the first votes were under a law now considered unconstitutional, Smith said. Some of those towns went "wet" by a matter of a few votes and could see that reverse, he said.

Many towns have come to rely on the revenue from alcohol sales, Smith said. "This needs to be fixed immediately," he said.

AL.com reporter Stephen Dethrage contributed to this report

Updated at 2:40 p.m. with comments from Oneonta's attorney. Updated at 6 p.m. with comments from ABC Board