Judge rejects legal challenge to Moorestown's ballot question on allowing alcohol sales

A state Superior Court judge in Burlington County has denied a request from a Moorestown resident to strike a ballot question that will ask voters whether they want to allow alcohol sales in the historically dry community.

William E. Cox, a Center City lawyer and Moorestown resident, filed a challenge, saying state law permits liquor referendums only once every five years and that residents had overwhelmingly defeated such a question as recently as 2007.

But Judge Ronald Bookbinder agreed with the arguments of a Moorestown Mall lawyer, Anthony Drollas, who said this year's question was worded differently and therefore passed muster.

The new question says: "Shall the sale of all alcoholic beverages at retail, except for consumption on railroad trains, airplanes, and boats, and the issuance of any retail licenses, except as aforesaid, pursuant to chapter one of the Title Intoxicating Liquors of the Revised Statutes" be permitted?

The 2007 question was identical except for the mention of "trains, airplanes, and boats."

Township attorney Thomas Coleman joined Drollas in saying the slightly different wording of the question made holding another referendum legal.

The mall's owner, the Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust, or PREIT, is pushing for the town to become wet, saying that would enable it to open restaurants that serve alcohol, invigorating business and stemming vacancies at the mall.

Chris Russell, a public relations consultant who represents PREIT and a grassroots organization that favors the change, called Cox's lawsuit frivolous.

Russell said removing the question from the ballot would "take away the rights of Moorestown voters to have their voices heard on this year's ballot questions at the polls."

Cox said he would file an expedited appeal with a New Jersey appellate panel.

He said the ballot question violates "the spirit of the law," which recognizes that referendums can be "emotional and highly charged." He said there should be a "cooling-off period" between the referendums.

Cox also warned that under Bookbinder's interpretation, the "dry Moorestown contingent" could bring up the question again next year - using different wording - and force any restaurants that were granted liquor licenses to stop serving alcohol.

"That's a ridiculous scenario," he said, to permit liquor referendums so often.