Massachusetts voters rejected a proposal yesterday that would have allowed food stores to sell wine, dealing a victory to law enforcement groups and mom and pop shops that opposed the measure.

The proposed initiative, listed as Question 1, would have allowed licensing boards to issue as many as 2,800 additional wine permits to food stores. Under current state law, companies can hold a maximum of three liquor licenses—a rule that prevents many supermarket chains from selling beer, wine, and spirits.

With 96 percent of precincts reporting early this morning, “no” votes outnumbered “yes” ballots by a 12 percentage point margin.

But in Cambridge, where voters’ liberal leanings apparently apply to libations as well, 58 percent supported the measure.

The rejection of the initiative represents a significant reversal of voter opinion in recent months—a June poll by Suffolk University’s Political Research Center found that voters supported the initiative by a margin of two to one.

Many Harvard Square shops that already have liquor licenses—including C’Est Bon, Cardullo’s Gourmet Shoppe, and the University Wine Shop—opposed the initiative.

Cardullo’s owner, Frances R. Cardullo, rejoiced at the measure’s rejection.

“I’ve got a big investment in my beer and wine license and it would have been totally diluted to zero,” she said. “I think the bottom line is that there’s enough saturation of wine shops in the area.”

Steve Peterson, the manager at University Wine Shop, which contributed $1,000 to the “Vote No on One” Committee, said he was surprised at the result. He attributed the reversal to the opposition from police forces and the fear that its passage would result in increased drunk driving incidents.

If the measure had passed, several grocery stores in the Square would likely have applied for licenses.

Grocery stores represented the primary contributors to the “Yes on 1: Grocery Stores and Consumers for Fair Competition” Committee.

The committee’s biggest donor was Stop & Shop, which contributed $2.7 million, according to public filings. Shaw’s, which owns the Star Market on Beacon Street in Somerville and the Shaw’s in Porter Square, contributed $1.57 million, making it the second-largest donor.

Combined, the two sides spent about $11.5 million, exceeding the previous record for expenditures on a Massachusetts ballot question—$9.1 million was spent in 1988 over a proposal that would have shut down the state’s nuclear power plants.

OTHER BALLOT INITIATIVES

On ballot Question 2, voters rejected the proposal for “fusion voting,” which would have allowed more than one party to nominate the same candidate.

The measure, which was backed by several labor unions, failed by a 30 percentage-point margin. But Cambridge voters turned down the proposal by a narrower 51-to-49 margin.

The vote was much closer on a third statewide ballot question, a proposed law that would allow child-care workers in private homes to unionize. As of early this morning, with 95 percent of precincts reporting, “no” votes on question three edged out affirmatives, 52-48.

Seven of Cambridge’s 33 precincts voted on a non-binding resolution that asks representatives to support a resolution calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

About three-quarters of Cantabrigians who voted on the issue supported the resolution to withdraw.

The question appeared on ballots in 139 towns across the state.

—Staff writer Stephanie S. Garlow can be reached at sgarlow@fas.harvard.edu.