PRINT THIS PAGE | E-MAIL THIS PAGE

Friday, November 7, 1997

Lottery withholds name of second jackpot winner

By JUAN B. ELIZONDO Jr. Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN (AP) - For the second time this year, state lottery officials have refused to tell Texans exactly who won a multimillion-dollar lotto jackpot.

Marcy Goodfleisch, spokeswoman for the lottery, Thursday said the agency seeks to accommodate lottery winners who don't want their names made public.

She added, however, that the commission will release winners' names if given permission by the winners or ordered to do so by the Texas attorney general or a judge.

"It's not in our best interest not to have publicity," she said.

The commission on Wednesday gave a check for $510,666.50 to the B&R Trust of Lubbock.

At the winner's request, the lottery refused to say who is behind the trust, which will get a total of $12.6 million over 25 years.

The trust's principals held one of three winning tickets for the $38 million lotto prize drawn Aug. 20.

Suzy Woodford, head of Common Cause of Texas - an open government group - said Texans have the right to know exactly who won the state-run numbers game.

"It can be anybody," Ms. Woodford said. "It could be employees of the lottery, an elected official. If they are, in fact, the winners, the people of Texas have a right to know."

Ms. Woodford said she was unaware of any other situation in which a person or organization can agree to receive money from the state without having at least their name made public.

Under state law, the addresses and phone numbers of lottery winners are not public information.

In a case earlier this year, Attorney General Dan Morales' office ordered the lottery to release the name of the main person behind Houston-based AMR Partnership Limited. The partnership in January claimed the $11.4 million lotto jackpot drawn last Christmas.

Rather than immediately make the winner's name public, lottery officials gave the partnership time to sue. The partnership did, challenging Morales' order in court. The lawsuit remains pending.

Even if upheld, Morales' opinion in the AMR case would not apply to the B&R case. That's because it was written as an "informal" opinion not meant to be used as precedent for other cases.Send a Letter to the Editor about This Story | Start or Join A Discussion about This Story
Send the URL (Address) of This Story to A Friend: