under the state constitution are typically subject to rational basis review). 19 . As far as I can tell, no other court has held that such laws exceed a state’s police power. When restrictions on the sale of alcohol have been struck down, it has generally been on some other discrete constitutional or statutory ground. See, e.g., Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263, 276, 104 S.Ct. 3049, 82 L.Ed.2d 200 (1984) (declaring a state law taxing certain alcoholic beverages produced in-state differently from beverages produced out-of-state to be violative of the Commerce Clause and noting that the state justified the law solely on the basis of promoting the local beverage industry); Rice v. Alcoholic Bev. Control Appeals Bd., 21 Cal.3d 431, 146 Cal.Rptr. 585, 579 P.2d 476, 494-95 (1978) (<HOLDING>). 20 . "The privileges and immunities of
holding that official proponents of californias proposition 8 lacked article iii standing in federal court holding cercla does not preempt californias corporate capacity statute holding that californias liquor pricefixing statute violated federal antitrust law holding that californias antislapp statute is applicable in federal court holding claim that prior conviction was not serious felony under californias sentencing law not cognizable in federal habeas proceeding