FACT may have lost its latest legal battle, but the war over the drink tax is still brewing. … FACT may have lost its latest legal battle, but the war over the drink tax is still brewing. The Friends Against Counterproductive Taxation ‘mdash; a group of Allegheny County restaurant owners ‘mdash; has been opposed to Allegheny County’s 10 percent tax on poured alcoholic drinks since its inception in January. Last month, FACT submitted a referendum for the November ballot that asked voters if they would favor a reduction in the drink tax from 10 percent to 0.5 of a percentage point. But the County Board of Elections shot down the referendum by a unanimous vote last Tuesday. ‘We’re going to continue to operate under the assumption that we’ll be on the ballot in November,’ said John Graf, FACT’s secretary. Dissatisfied with the board’s decision, FACT appealed the board’s ruling last Thursday in the Common Pleas Court. In addition to denying FACT’s referendum, the board also rejected a referendum conceived by County Council that sought to ask voters if they would prefer their property taxes to be raised in exchange for a repeal of the drink tax. The board of elections declined both referendums because a provision in the state law that says only County Council has the authority to raise, lower or repeal taxes such as the drink tax, Graf said. In other words, a referendum cannot reduce a tax by referendum, regardless of whether it’s provided by the citizens or City Council itself. FACT insists, however, that the public has the power to fix the rate of some taxes, like the drink tax, and that the state law is still in their favor. The board of elections’ three members, Judge Christine Ward, Judge Dwayne Woodruff and Judge Jill Rangos, were appointed as replacements. The three regular elections board members, John DeFazio, Dan Onorato and Chuck McCullough, were substituted because of their already publicly known positions on the referendums. County Council member Matt Drozd thinks that County Council will follow FACT’s footsteps by also seeking an appeal to the ruling. Drozd said, however, that it would not be worth it for County Council to try and appeal. ‘I will not support any appeal on behalf of Council to appeal the judges ruling,’ he said. ‘I believe we pay too much in legal fees now, and it’s a waste of taxpayers’ money.’ Although FACT’s appeal has been filed, the outcome is still pending. Graf said he expects that the Common Pleas president, Judge Joseph James, will make the ruling on the appeal. The rejection by the board of elections may be a hurdle to FACT’s progress, but the group has long been gearing up for a court battle. ‘This doesn’t change any of our plans. We always knew we were going to be in court,’ said Graf. ‘We’re going to push this appeal.’ FACT plans to remain adamant and will take its case to a high level if necessary. ‘In all likelihood it’s going to go to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,’ said Graf.