Governor Ted Strickland is getting into the act. The decision striking down the rules expanding the definition of “private club” is being appealed. The governor insists that people thought they were voting for a law which exempted private clubs – and it did, but the rules are so strict that almost no private clubs satisfy the law.
The reason the rules are so strict though is to prevent the “Utah effect”. When I was in Park City Utah once I new it was a “dry” state. Alcohol was allowed in private homes, restaurants and private clubs. That should have shut down the bars but you know what happened? The bars all became private clubs. The rules were so loose about what constituted a private club that it was easy to be a bar and still fit the definition of private club.
Besides the stated purpose of the smoking ban was to protect employees. If a private club has employees and private clubs are not covered those employees are not protected. Hence the rule that a private club is one that has no employees.
I have a question though. To what extent can our state legislature modify a law that was passed by the voters.