Giving voters the power to decide whether to get the state out of the liquor business in Pennsylvania advanced on Wednesday to the full state House of Representatives for consideration. The House Liquor Control Committee voted 14-10 along party lines to approve a proposed constitutional amendment to privatize the liquor system with all Democrats opposing the measure. The vote followed a near hourlong debate where the proposal’s author, Rep. Natalie Mihalek, R-Allegheny County, was peppered with questions about the proposal’s impact on tax revenue that state stores generate, on the 2,500 full-time employees who work in them, the product selection, and more. Because Mihalek’s bill seeks to amend the constitution, the legislation would have to be approved by both chambers of the General Assembly in two consecutive legislative sessions before it could go to the voters for approval. Her bill proposes to ask voters whether or not the commonwealth should manufacture or sell, at wholesale or retail, liquor. If voters approved, the bill requires the Legislature to divest itself from the liquor business within 18 months of the amendment’s ratification. For more than 30 years, past governors and lawmakers have failed in their attempts to replace the state-run system with privately run stores. Mihalek attributed that to the role that special interests play in influencing policy decisions made in Harrisburg. She said those discussions always left one group of people out of the decision-making process: voters. She said polls indicate a majority of Pennsylvanians favor getting the government out of the liquor business. Besides the flaws and shortcomings she has seen with the state-run system, Mihalek said, "I think there’s a conflict of interest in selling something, advertising and promoting it and at the same time, regulating it. It would be akin to the ATF both regulating and selling firearms.” Democratic Rep. MaryLouise Isaacson of Philadelphia wondered about the simplicity of the question that would be put to voters without providing information such as the requirement it would need to be accomplished in 18 months and point out the ramifications that such a drastic change could bring. "Was there a thought process with regard to just the simplistic language that’s misleading to voters on what” they’re being asked, Isaacson said. Mihalek replied: "It’s not misleading at all. It’s very simple as you said. But we don’t want to put the cart before the horse. If the voters decide that they want to get rid of this archaic system, then we’re going to do the job that we were elected to do, which is come back and hammer out those details.” Rep. Greg Rothman, R-Cumberland County, asked Mihalek why she kept the amendment so simple. Mihalek responded voters are very much engaged right now in the role of government "in a way that we haven’t seen maybe in a generation or so. So the question for the voters is simple” and she said this is "the most democratic way to answer ” But she added that "there won’t be a simple solution.” Rep. Jesse Topper, R-Bedford County, said he sees this proposal as a fresh approach to resolving a long-standing issue that the General Assembly has confronted on numerous occasions but failed to reach a consensus. He said voters might say no and "that could put it to rest forever.” But Democrats on the committee seemed more concerned that voters will vote yes. They questioned the impact on enforcement of liquor laws, product selection and prices, how the loss of funding that the state-run system provides to the commonwealth would be replaced, and the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board employees. Mihalek came prepared to respond to many of their concerns. She cited examples of privately run liquor stores that operate in other states that are five times larger than one of Pennsylvania’s bigger wine and spirits store and she said they have more than double the product selection. Regarding enforcement, she said the state-run stores are self policing and liquor control enforcement officers can’t police them as they can a privately owned store and assess criminal penalties for selling to an underage person. When it comes to the tax revenue, she said repatriated sales from shoppers who now go out of state to buy their liquor will more than make up for any revenue loss. As for the PLCB employees, she said they possess "skills and expertise to go in the private system and actually have better opportunities.” Mihalek admitted she didn’t have all the answers such as the cost of breaking warehouse and store leases but was optimistic lawmakers could tackle issues like that in the 18-month window they would have to do it. After all, she said they have 30-plus years of liquor privatization proposals at their disposal. "We know all the stakeholders. We know all the entities that have a vested interest in creating something that works for everybody,” Mihalek said. But she gave a nod to what a tall order it would be, saying, "We will have our work cut out for us.” and help us continue covering the stories that matter to you and your community.