Mississippi residents hoping to enjoy out-of-state wines may face another year of waiting, as the state Senate on Thursday rejected a bill that would have allowed the direct shipment of wines to residents. After an hour of debate and several amendments, Senate Bill 2145 failed to meet the necessary three-fifths threshold for passage, with a vote of 25 in favor and 21 opposed.
The bill, which had already passed the Finance Committee by a narrow margin, was revised multiple times to address local concerns. One key change during the floor debate reduced the number of wine cases that could be shipped to a single address annually from 24 to just 12. Despite these adjustments, the bill was unable to garner enough support.
Supporters of the legislation highlighted the potential for significant state revenue, with a proposed 15.5% tax on each sale and shipment. Three percent of this tax would be allocated to fund mental health services. However, a fiscal note detailing the bill’s financial impact was not prepared.
Under the proposal, individuals wishing to receive direct shipments would need to obtain a direct wine shipper permit from the Department of Revenue. Additionally, recipients would be required to verify their age by providing identification when receiving orders.
Senator Walter Michel (R), the bill’s author, emphasized the economic benefits, noting that many Mississippians, particularly in the western part of the state, already travel to Louisiana to purchase out-of-state wines. He argued that Mississippi is missing out on millions of dollars in tax revenue by not allowing such shipments. Currently, Mississippi is one of only three states that prohibits direct wine shipments.
Senator Chad McMahan (R) proposed an amendment to introduce penalties for out-of-state wineries that violated the law by shipping wine to Mississippians. Under his amendment, wineries would face fines of up to $500 for a first offense, $3,000 for a second violation, and a potential $6,000 fine and revocation of their operating permit for a third violation. The amendment was ultimately rejected.
The bill’s introduction sparked concerns among some senators who questioned whether it would primarily benefit wealthier individuals seeking access to higher-priced wines not available in local stores. Senator Jeremy England (R), who presented the committee substitute, acknowledged that the focus of the shipments would likely be on premium wines.
As of Thursday afternoon, a motion to reconsider the bill had been entered. While similar legislation has been introduced in past years, it has consistently stalled before reaching the governor’s desk.
Thursday marked the deadline for considering non-revenue bills in the legislative session.
Related topics:
