160 What is the AZ Republic really up to?


Tom Garrett 3 years, 10 months ago

As of this moment, Arizona House Bill HB 2082 has been approved by the House, has been approved by a 5-2 vote of the AZ Senate Committee on Commerce, Energy and Military, and only needs approval by the whole house and signature by the governor to become law.

What does it do?

Something people have been asking for for a long time.

It allows future Lottery winners to keep their names and addresses confidential, only permitting the release of the winner's home town.


You already know, but just in case you don't it is because of the mass of letters, e-mails, and telephone calls that turn your life upside down and make you the target of every scam artist in the state.

Unbelievably, though he has been rebuffed at every turn so far, David Bodney, the attorney for The Arizona Republic, is not yet ready to give up on his "compromise." He wants to allow winners only 10 days of confidentiality to arrange their affairs before their names are released.

He says, "Public accountability, giving folks the sense that it wasn't somebody's in-law or nephew or cousin of a member of the Lottery commission who keeps winning these awards is essential because it protects against misconduct and cronyism and all that kind of stuff."

I ask you, frankly. Do you believe that is their real reason for wanting winning names to be made public?


Then what it is?


John Lemon 3 years, 10 months ago

Tom, Publishing a person's name or otherwise making the name public does absolutely nothing to prevent untoward acts. It does, however, expose the person to obvious breaches of the right to privacy and, indeed, may put the person at risk. If nothing greater, it will drive the poor exposed person into insanity due to lack of privacy. The Roundup will not publish the name of individuals accused of certain crimes and yet the Republic wants to publish the names of people who assumedly have done nothing to deserve "punishment" that such publicity will bring? I can not assign a motive to such a stance. I will state that it is just plian wrong and stupid.


Pat Randall 3 years, 10 months ago

I think the names should be made public. Give them the 10 days. If they don't want thier names published, then don't buy a ticket. Seems maybe they don't want to pay bad debts they have.
Are illegals allowed to collect the money if they win? They broke the law when they crossed the border. I don't think the Roundup should print only some of the arrest records. Why should they have the right to pick and choose? Either print all or none. I have noticed it is the names not the crimes. I questioned the paper a long time ago about it and was told they printed what the Police and Sheriff's office gave them. Does that tell you anything?


Tom Garrett 3 years, 10 months ago


I agree with you. You do not give away your rights to privacy when you buy a lottery ticket. It is a contract between you and the state; you offer to put money into a pot along with others so that some lucky person can come away a winner. In no way does that imply, or is it stated as part of the contract on the lottery ticket, that you will permit the state to use your name for advertising purposes, whose goal is not to assure the people that the prize did not go to some insider, but to increase its business.

All that anyone needs to know about the lottery is that someone won, and how much. As far as attracting people to play the lottery is concerned, it is no more effective to tell people the name of the winner than it is to simply say--as is suggested--"a lucky woman in Mesa walked away with $275,000 after taxes today."

So you give me the name? You say, "Jackie Deau of Mesa walked away with $275,000 after taxes today." Does that mean any more to me? I don't know the woman, so what does here name mean to me? Nothing. On the oither hand, if I am one of those who constantly send out begging letters--often, believe it or not, with good enough results to make a living at it--I now have what I need.

Publishing the name of the winner is in effect a form of punishment. Not only that, but now that this has arisen as an issue I can guarantee you that people will think twice before buying a lottery ticket if the bill doe snot go through. They will remember all the flack, the comments about begging letters and phone calls, and say, "Phoeey! I'm noot going to win anyway, and if I do win it won't be worth it."

As to the reporting of arrests, I believe that too is an invasion of privacy if the name is given. Crimes should be reported, but not the name of accused until after he or she is proven guilty. People have a nasty habit of believing that "where there's smoke there's fire." A person can be accused of having done something, be totally innocent, have his or her innocence proven in court, and still be ruined as a result.

I also believe that no online or otherwise public record should be made of arrests. Trial records, fine. When you do the crime you pay the penalty. But no record of arrests should be posted.

If people were logical and open-minded it would be different, but they aren't. I know that for a fact because I have seen it in operation.


Tom Garrett 3 years, 10 months ago

Here's an odd twist to this issue. I am puzzled about it and wonder if you have any ideas.

During the Senate voice vote on privacy for lottery winners Senator Steve Gallardo, Democrat of Phoenix voiced an objection. He is the only one who objected.

He claims that the reason he voted no was because he was worried that if the names weren't made public some relative of a lottery employee might win, but I have to tell you that sounds like an excuse to me. It would take one great wonder of a plot for something like that to be brought off. And yet I'm sitting here trying to think of another reason.

Any ideas?


Bernice Winandy 3 years, 10 months ago

Tom, the names shouldn't be published unless the winners OK the publication. Thank heavens the legislature is finally discussing something beside the use of public restrooms by transgenders. Now if they will only get to discussing the Brewer plan to restore medical coverage to Arizona's needy.


Kim Chittick 3 years, 10 months ago

I do not believe that the names of winners should be published without their agreement. The simple purchase of a few dollars of lottery tickets does not mean that should someone be fortunate enough to win, they are forfeiting their right to privacy.

I know someone who won a tremendous jackpot in Powerball, in another state a few years ago. They declined to have their name published, however it still got out, and they continue to receive bags and trays of letters from people with all sorts of sob stories. Con artists, would be inventors, "financial managers", people with terminal illnesses, people who say they have a terminal illness. I think that these people have heard just about every story out there. They even had people show up on their doorstep. Fortunately, they stopped reading the letters and taking the phone calls, and they don't get as many showing up on their porch. They support the charities of their choice. They help their kids and their family. they donate to their church. And they have managed to protect their good fortune in such a way that generations to come will benefit. Their kids still work, grandkids are all in private church affiliated schools and are expected to go to college. Nobody gets a handout for nothing in return. Each of us has the dream and the hope that the particular combination of our lucky numbers will be the ones chosen by the lottery select-o machine, and make us rich. Perhaps I am naive, however I do not believe that the lottery is set up as some great nepotistic scheme to make the families of lottery officials rich. And I do not believe that publishing the names and details of winners is anymore essential to maintaining the integrity of the lottery system, than it is to satisfy the prurient interests of a few curmudgeonly naysayers who see corruption and negativity in everything they look at. Again, please excuse my naivete, but folks, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!


Pat Randall 3 years, 10 months ago

Kim, The winners may be like the person that won and was $29,000 behind in child support. Have bad debts everywhere and don't want anyone to know they are now able to pay them. There are people in the world like that.

Does anyone remember why the lottery was voted for in Arizona? It was to build new highways and bridges in Az. Now look at the list of things it is used for and we still have crappy highways and unsafe bridges. Some was used to build houses for owls at Roosevelt dam a few years back. They were built out of cedar wood and owls don't like cedar wood. Guess it was done under the direction of a consultant.


Tom Garrett 3 years, 10 months ago

I agree very strongly with NOT giving out names. I see no way in which we revoke our right to privacy by buying a ticket to a lottery. The only one who gains when someone wins a big jackpot and their is a lot of news coverage is the state; they get more players. That's no reason for people to give up their privacy.

"Guess it was done under the direction of a consultant."

Pat, you seem to have the same opinion of consultants as I do.

Bernice, the Air Force, at Tachikawa Air Base in Japan, had a nice restroom solution. Only place I've ever seen it.

And I am NOT kidding.

We had three rest rooms in the air terminal where I worked:




I swear to God I am not kidding.

Maybe the Air Force knew something we don't know. :-)


Tom Garrett 3 years, 9 months ago

I ask you to think about. What can someone have had in mind when he ordered that there be those three restrooms? That was 1958. I have thought about it ever since. I have never been able to wrap my mind around it. What could be have been thinking about?


Tom Garrett 3 years, 9 months ago

I was the Protocol NCO in the air terminal there in Tachikawa. It was a two story building, and most of the second story was a gallery, part of which was the VIP Lounge. I'd be up there taking care of VIP or other and I'd look over the railing, see the three restrooms, break up, and have to make up a story for the VIP as to what I had seen that was so funny.

I just cannot imagine what the person who made that decision was thinking of.

Reminds me of "No Time For Sergeants," a movie with Andy Griffin in it. Maybe you remember it. For some reason his sergeant needed to be sure that Andy stayed in the Army, and Andy had just been taught that female officers had to be treated just like male officers, that there was no difference. His NCO, worried about Andy's vision, saw a female Major coming in the door across the room and asked Andy what he saw.

"I see a major, sergeant."

"That's all? Just a major?"

"Yes, sir! Just a major."

"Oh-h-h boy!" :-)


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.