Kate Riley / Times staff columnist
Courts shouldn't bottle up Washington's wines

By Kate Riley
Seattle Times editorial columnist

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most e-mailed articles

On the other end, I wasn't sure if it was because the Walla Wallawinemaker wanted to be heard over horn-happy New York drivers or he was so fired up over an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that inhibits the growth of Washington's 275 wineries.

"At its core, it's economic protectionism," said Figgins, president of the Washington Wine Institute. "I did a tasting of Washington wines here last night. I have a dozen business cards from people who want to buy wine directly from me. But I have to tell them all no."

The Empire State is one of about two dozen that ban direct shipments from wineries to consumers. It also is a party to a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court over whether states have the right to do so. Justices agreed last week to settle conflicting lower court rulings — one appeals court upheld New York's right to ban direct sales, another struck down Michigan's.

Both cases were brought by wine-loving residents of the respective states and out-of-state wineries that say the ban limits consumer choice. They argue the U.S. Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause assures free trade among the states.

New York and Michigan argue their bans are protected by the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, which repealed Prohibition and put states in charge of liquor sales.

Wine clearly should be considered a different category from other alcohol. After all, who keeps a cellar of different light-beer vintages or hosts whiskey tastings? The rise of wine collecting and touring and consumer expectations fanned by the convenience of Internet purchases pushed the issue to the highest court in the land.

Fighting to keep the bans are distributors, who buy from wineries and sell to stores and might lose out if the state bans were lifted. They also argue children will be at risk, an implausible charge considering fine wine prices and that shippers require the signature of an adult of legal drinking age.

Figgins' irritation is understandable. The Walla Walla winemaker was standing smack in the middle of frustrated opportunity — a huge international city with "a lot of sophisticated palates." While his and other Washington wines are available in New York restaurants and wine stores through distributors, individual consumers cannot order directly from the winery.

Figgins wants to be able to ship wines to the Florida restaurant-goer who became enamored of his 2001 Columbia Valley merlot's brooding nose and lush finish and wants a case for his own cellar. (In that state, shipping wine to a consumer is a felony.)

Those unrequited requests are happening more often for Washington's wineries, which enjoy an impressive and growing reputation among oenophiles. In 2003, state wineries produced about 17 million gallons, up from only 2 million gallons in 1981, and contributed about $2.4 billion to the state economy. After California, Washington is the nation's second-largest wine producer.

For larger wineries like the Woodinville-based Ste. Michelle Wine Estates, the issue is not so much an issue of survival as good customer service. The grand-daddy of Washington's wine industry relies on a comprehensive network of distributors but still must turn down many requests from individual consumers.

"We would like to see the day when we can have both," said Keith Love, Ste. Michelle's vice president of communications.

At least Figgins has one influential New Yorker on his side. Gov. George Pataki, who in 1995 vetoed legislation that would have permitted out-of-state wine shipments, now has proposed a bill that would permit them from states that permit New York wineries to ship to consumers.

Part of Pataki's proposed state budget, the bill would add New York to the list of reciprocal states that includes Washington and about a dozen others. While the governor thinks the state will collect an additional $2 million in taxes and licensing fees from out-of-state wineries, no doubt his change of heart also had something to do with the frustration of New York's own growing wine industry, which has been limited to shipping only to in-state consumers.

The Supreme Court should lift this ridiculous limitation on free trade among the states. If not, consumer and industry pressures like those that swayed Pataki will only grow stronger. Let's hope.

Kate Riley's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. Her e-mail address is kriley@seattletimes.com