Missed Opportunity: Alcohol Delivery, DUI Reform, and Civil Justice Bills Fail
Impaired driving is a serious issue in South Carolina. South Carolina leads the nation in the number of fatalities resulting from drunk driving, with 6.92 deaths per 100,000 citizens, according to federal highway data. This tragic statistic should not be taken lightly.
A viable solution may lie in bills like H.3857, S.849, and S.52, which were filed during the previous (2025-26) legislative session.
- H.3857 and S.849 allowed retailers in South Carolina to provide delivery and curbside pickup services for beer, wine, and spirits.
- S.52 reformed Palmetto State DUI laws.
None of these bills passed before the end of the last session, but legislators should take a hard look at them again in 2027-28.
How The Bills Work
Currently, drive-through and curbside alcohol sales are banned in South Carolina. H.3857 and S.849 would repeal this, allowing the Department of Revenue to issue curbside delivery and pick-up licenses or permits. Retailers could deliver directly or hire third-party delivery companies such as Uber Eats and DoorDash to provide their products directly to customers. There are common-sense protections built upon existing rules and similar laws seen to be successful in other states like Florida and Alabama.
For example, purchasers would be required to present ID when the deliveries are made. Deliveries would not be made to schools, churches, or college dormitories. The beverages must be sealed. Delivery drivers must be aged 18 and older for beer and wine, and 21 years old for liquor, similar to restaurant service laws already on the books in South Carolina. The driver is also required to refuse delivery if the customer appears to be intoxicated or does not have proof of identification.
The Safety Argument Is Genuine
Opponents of H.3857 and S.489 argue that the introduction of home delivery will not help get intoxicated drivers off the road. Some folks say that home delivery will not discourage people from driving while impaired. That is certainly an understandable position, but if there is someone who wishes to drive to a wine/beer or liquor store but has had a few drinks while at home, then delivery services are a convenience that could discourage that plan.
Dr. Oran Smith, Senior Fellow at Palmetto Promise, testifying in favor of H.3857, used the football game example. Someone who shows interest in purchasing more alcohol after he or she has begun drinking while watching a three- to four-hour football game should be kept out of the driver’s seat.
Everyone understands that there are many reasons why people drive under the influence of alcohol. Still, getting rid of one reason to go on a tipsy beer run is a significant improvement.
Much like with healthcare and energy, choice is key. If consumers want convenience, they should have the right to choose it if safe. The South Carolina economy would also benefit from curbside pickup and delivery as businesses cater to consumers seeking convenience.
The “Other” Worthy Reform
Other alcohol reforms addressed Driving Under the Influence more directly; one of those bills also had a tort reform element. That worthy effort was embodied in the very comprehensive S.52 filed by Senator Tom Davis (R-Beaufort).
S.52 passed each house in some form, which led to a Conference Committee. But, despite a deal being struck in conference, the Senate failed to grant Free Conference powers during the extended session, and the House adjourned debate on the bill the same day. The late, great S.52 was a comprehensive overhaul of South Carolina’s DUI statutes, backed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). According to MADD, South Carolina recorded 417 drunk driving deaths in 2024, a 51% increase since 2019, and the state has the worst per capita drunk driving fatality rate in the nation.
The bill would have required ignition interlock devices for DUI offenders who refuse a breath or blood test, increase penalties for offenders who cause crashes while impaired, and strengthen tools for law enforcement and prosecutors to secure convictions, which MADD says have been hampered by procedural loopholes in current law. It also aims to expand protections for victims of DUI crashes.
Despite being a stated priority for legislative leaders heading into the 2026 session, S.52 died in the Senate when a procedural vote required for final passage failed during a late June special session, after lawmakers tried to fold language addressing THC-intoxicated driving into the bill. Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey said the DUI defeat resulted from the decision to combine the THC language with the DUI bill, which split what had been solid Senate support for tougher penalties and closing prosecutorial loopholes. (The Hemp bill, H.3924, also failed to pass when the House rejected the Conference Report.)
The defeat effectively kills the measure for the year, meaning DUI reform advocates across the board—from anti-alcohol organizations like MADD to broader tort reform proponents—will need to push for reintroduction in the next session.
What’s Next?
H.3857/S.849 and S.52 can be reintroduced in the 127th General Assembly when it convenes in January 2027. There was groundwork on both bills. H.3857 passed the House Judiciary General Laws subcommittee and received a favorable report, meaning that there has been enough bipartisan support to move the legislation forward.
S.52 passed both the Senate and House in some form.
South Carolina doesn’t have to be the last state to update and strengthen its alcohol laws. Safety can work hand in hand with consumer protection, economic expansion, and progress on civil justice. This is a conversation worth continuing.
