Texas legislature to consider lottery winner anonymity bill

May 9, 2015, 7:39 am (27 comments)

Texas Lottery

AUSTIN, Tex. — What a turnaround.

In the 2013 session the Texas House passed a bill aimed at abolishing the state lottery.

But after some soul-searching — mainly confronted with the fact the state would lose $1.1 billion a year for public education — some representatives who wanted to eliminate the Texas Lottery Commission reversed their vote, in essence resuscitating the game.

Now House members may go a step further.

On Tuesday the 150-member chamber will consider a bill that would allow winners of more than $1 million to remain anonymous. Under current Texas law they can't.

Rep. Ryan Guillen said the personal safety and peace of mind of lottery winners were key considerations for filing House Bill 108.

"This actually came to me from a constituent who told me she aspires to win the lottery but she lives on the border and she is afraid of somebody kidnapping her for a ransom" Guillen, D-Rio Grande City, said.

"But beyond that, we all have heard many stories about being hassled a great deal, folks who win the lottery are hassled" by people asking them for money, Guillen said. "This will give them the opportunity, the option, that if they want to be anonymous they can be anonymous."

Rep. John Kuempel, a member of the House Licensing & Administrative Procedures — the panel that screened HB 108 — likes Guillen's bill for similar reasons.

"The large part of it is public safety and personal safety," Kuempel, R-Seguin, said. "If I win $100 million I certainly want to remain anonymous...it is a personal right you should have."

Kuempel, who last year chaired a special committee that looked into the impact the abolition of the lottery would have on the state budget, emphasized the game is staying.

"If there is a bill (aimed at abolishing it) I don't know about it," he said.

Actually, Rep. Scott Sanford filed one but did not pursue it.

"We decided not to push on it because it would not have been successful," Sanford, R-McKinney, said. "The House isn't there yet."

Kuempel said the vote in the previous session was reversed the same day because even representatives opposed to gambling realized the severe impact the elimination of the Texas lottery would have on the public education budget.

Where would the state get the 1.1 billion it gets from the lottery? he asked.

Veteran Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo, who voted against the creation of the Texas Lottery in the early 1990s, said though he also doesn't expect a push to abolish the lottery in this session, it is something the Legislature should keep considering.

One of the possibilities is a gradual phase out, Smithee, Sanford and other lottery critics said.

"We've got to do it in way that doesn't hit the education budget real hard," Sanford said.

Rep. Four Price, R-Amarillo, said there was no major attempt to abolish the lottery this session because it was not a Sunset bill.

This was in reference to a review of every state agency, usually every 12 years. A joint legislative panel named the Sunset Advisory Commission recommends to the Legislature whether an agency it reviews should be abolished, overhauled or unchanged.

"There are a lot of opinions on how the commission operates and whether there should be a lottery at all," Price, vice chairman of the Sunset Commission, said.

But since the Lottery Commission was reviewed in the previous legislative cycle, no Sunset bill is expected this year or in the foreseeable future, Price explained.

But even if a regular bill to abolish the lottery advances, the near death of the Lottery Commission in 2013 showed — unless there is a well-thought plan to replace the revenue loss — the lawmakers won't mess with the state lottery anytime soon because, even in prosperous times, it's hard to replace lost revenue.

Moreover, pass or fail, the fact Guillen's bill has come this far is yet another indication — in the Texas Legislature — reliable revenue carries more weight than political ideology.

Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

Comments

music*'s avatarmusic*

"Don't mess with Texas".      Winners of more then $1 million to remain anonymous is highly welcome almost everywhere. A winner has so much swirling around their life this helps them remain sane and safe.

  We should follow the example of the States that have laws protecting winners with anonymity i.e. Kansas, Maryland,Delaware,  Ohio .  And one other State I think.

hearsetrax's avatarhearsetrax

Quote: Originally posted by music* on May 9, 2015

"Don't mess with Texas".      Winners of more then $1 million to remain anonymous is highly welcome almost everywhere. A winner has so much swirling around their life this helps them remain sane and safe.

  We should follow the example of the States that have laws protecting winners with anonymity i.e. Kansas, Maryland,Delaware,  Ohio .  And one other State I think.

pickone4me's avatarpickone4me

Nice!  Now how about the rest of the states!

music*'s avatarmusic*

Thank You hearsetrax for your input and help.  The law should be called,"the Abraham Shakespeare law".  If only he was still alive , may he rest in peace. Abraham was an illiterate but good natured person who won in Florida. Dee Dee Moore got her claws into his winnings then shot him twice in the chest. She is serving life without parole. Two lives wasted for no reason.

mypiemaster's avatarmypiemaster

Why put a dollar figure on our choice/safety?. Just give us two boxes....check box1 if you want to stay anonymous, check box2 if you don't. Better still, keep everybody anonymous and let the hams and the hot dogs go out there and seek their own publicity.

CDanaT's avatarCDanaT

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh......Kudos state reps, for realizing the spring flowers are blooming and the coffee's-a-brewing. You have renewed my faith (just a smidge) that reasonableness and common sense still does exist in government officials. Thanks for doing your jobs and keeping the safety/security of the folks first and foremost.

Technut's avatarTechnut

I do favor remaining anonymous. But i also don't want to give up a part of my winnings for that right either.

As far as Texas gettin rid of the lottery i doubt it will happen anytime soon or ever.

Teddi's avatarTeddi

Finally, a group of legislators with sense and who actually have the brains to think of the personal safety and well-being of the winners. I'm sure the lottery will lobby hard against this, since they view free publicity as more important than an individual's life, but I'm hopeful that this bill will pass. Kudos to them. Now, let's get the other states to follow suit.

LottoMetro's avatarLottoMetro

Quote: Originally posted by Technut on May 9, 2015

I do favor remaining anonymous. But i also don't want to give up a part of my winnings for that right either.

As far as Texas gettin rid of the lottery i doubt it will happen anytime soon or ever.

I went to Texas' website and looked up this bill. Didn't see anything about an "anonymity fee" or cost that I think was mentioned elsewhere. I did see that your information could be released after 30 days if you took the prize in installments, though

Technut's avatarTechnut

Quote: Originally posted by LottoMetro on May 9, 2015

I went to Texas' website and looked up this bill. Didn't see anything about an "anonymity fee" or cost that I think was mentioned elsewhere. I did see that your information could be released after 30 days if you took the prize in installments, though

That fee i was reffering to was in another post a while back where they would take 5% so you could keep your privacy. I think that is BS.

Stack47

Quote: Originally posted by Technut on May 9, 2015

I do favor remaining anonymous. But i also don't want to give up a part of my winnings for that right either.

As far as Texas gettin rid of the lottery i doubt it will happen anytime soon or ever.

There are almost 27 million people in Texas, how man players were affected without anonymity?

myturn's avatarmyturn

If you live in Texas, please write to your  representative in support of winners' right to anonymity.

myturn's avatarmyturn

"This actually came to me from a constituent who told me she aspires to win the lottery but she lives on the border and she is afraid of somebody kidnapping her for a ransom" Guillen, D-Rio Grande City, said.

"But beyond that, we all have heard many stories about being hassled a great deal, folks who win the lottery are hassled" by people asking them for money, Guillen said. "This will give them the opportunity, the option, that if they want to be anonymous they can be anonymous."

 

 

 

While I agree with the above statements, it is not only criminals that winners have to worry about.

 

 

When people win a large amount, and it is known, they can come under enormous pressure from family members to "help" them.

 

It can take a strong person to say "NO", and before long the prize money is spend, with the winner's long-term financial security gone with it.

myturn's avatarmyturn

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on May 9, 2015

There are almost 27 million people in Texas, how man players were affected without anonymity?

As it is very few people, why not give them the right to anonymity? What is the point of forcing winners to go public?

Subscribe to this news story