MONTGOMERY — Multiple sources last week told The Post passage of a bill that could end the wet-dry battle in Cedar Bluff was “virtually assured.” Those assessments have proven overly optimistic so far, but there is still a chance that House Bill 175 could become law before the end of the legislative session.

In fact, Sen. Larry Means, D-Attalla, said he is “fairly confident” that the necessary votes to override Gov. Bob Riley’s veto will materialize if and when the time comes.

“I believe they are going to bring it up again Thursday,” Means told The Post Friday afternoon. “It will take 18 votes to override the veto and I think we’ll probably get them.”

Huntsville attorney Dagnal Rowe, who represents the town of Cedar Bluff, said he is hearing similar information.

“They will bring it up again on May 14 and I have some confidence that the votes will be there,” Rowe said.

HB175, written by Rep. Jimmy Martin, D-Clanton, was initially designed to change a 25-year-old Alabama law that prohibited towns in dry counties with less than 7,000 residents from holding votes to legalize alcohol sales. A late addition to that bill would allow clubs and restaurants in Shelby County that already sell alcohol on Sundays with a club license to continue the practice with their regular alcohol license. 

That change to Martin’s original bill prompted Gov. Riley to veto on April 28, citing Alabama law that a single bill cannot address multiple issues. 

Martin said he doesn’t see it that way. 

“The bill deals with alcohol sales,” Martin told The Post earlier this month. “That's one issue.”

Cedar Bluff, population 1,450, is in the midst of a legal battle that could cost it the right to sell alcohol because the town does not meet the current population requirement. 

Asked why his bill didn’t specifically include allowances for small towns in Alabama that have held successful wet-dry votes, Martin was very matter-of-fact.

“No one asked me to,” Martin said. “Some districts have legislators who want alcohol sales, but they are not willing to fight for it.” 

State law clearly prohibits a local law, such as the one allowing Cedar Bluff's August 2003 referendum, from superseding a general law -- in this case the one setting 7,000 as the residency requirement for holding a wet-dry vote. Martin’s bill would reduce the number to 1,000. 

The House overrode the governor's veto April 30, and several lawyers and government officials involved in the Cedar Bluff alcohol fight who spoke with The Post anticipated a similar vote in the Senate. But the Senate failed by a vote of 13-15. Eighteen votes were required to override the veto.  

One state official, who requested anonymity, told The Post he saw Gov. Riley lobbying on the Senate floor minutes before the vote.

“He was trying to talk the Senate out of overriding his veto, and I’m pretty sure it’s illegal for him to do that right before they hold a vote,” the source said. “The attitude about alcohol has changed in Montgomery in the last couple of years and I guess the governor doesn’t like that.”

Late Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Lowell Barron, D-Fyffe, won approval to hold over HB175 until the end of the current legislative session. There are two meeting days left, but this week’s schedule may be complicated by a Thursday morning rainstorm that flooded the basement of the Alabama State House and forced legislators to evacuate.

Rowe said if the override vote fails, the next step for Cedar Bluff will be to conclude William Geral Greene’s lawsuit against the town.

“I don’t want to speculate on what might happen in court, but it’s hard to believe that the state might conceivably order alcohol sales stopped in Cedar Bluff when there’s a state-run liquor store in Jackson County,” Rowe said. “They held their wet-dry based on a law that is virtually identical to the one that allowed Cedar Bluff to hold their election. Not only is the state permitting sales there, but it is profiting from it, too. ”