Virginia Lottery set to lower disclosure amount for winners
Virginia Lottery offices in Richmond. (Photo by Parker Michels-Boyce for The Virginia Mercury)
By Marlin Adams/VCU Capital News Service
RICHMOND, Va. – Lawmakers this session voted to lower the Virginia Lottery disclosure amount to provide more privacy to big ticket winners.
Del. Scott Wyatt, R-Mechanicsville, introduced House Bill 1799, which protects the personal information of $1 million or more lottery winners.
Virginia Lottery winners are currently required to release personal information, including their name and photo, for any amount under $10 million.
Forty-five states have lotteries, and 21 allow winners to stay anonymous, according to World Population Review, which tracks global population data and trends. Virginia requires the highest amount needed to stay anonymous.
Those opposed to the bill believe the required disclosure adds needed transparency, while those in support cited examples of personal privacy breaches because of the current law.
Megan Rhyne, executive director for the Virginia Coalition for Open Government, spoke against lowering the disclosure amount during the ABC-Gaming subcommittee meeting on Jan 14.
The current law was established to promote the lottery and its winners; essentially for residents to see real Virginians winning real prizes, according to Rhyne.
The current disclosure amount also supports state law that prevents Virginia Lottery board members, officers and employees from participating in the lottery, Rhyne said. This includes the purchase of tickets by any person residing in the same household of such a member.
Disclosure can help prevent 'nefarious activities,' such as when a computer programmer working with the Multi-State Lottery Association rigged several lotteries and collected over $2 million in winnings, Rhyne said.
Eddie Tipton pleaded guilty to rigging the lottery winnings in Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and Wisconsin, according to the Associated Press. He had help from his brother Tommy Tipton, a former Texas judge.
The bill's sponsor told the House panel that a previous $1 million Virginia winner was the target of several scams, including on social media, after her identity was posted on the lottery's website.
Virginia Lottery Executive Director Khalid Jones, spoke in support of Wyatt's bill.
Any prize under $600 can be paid out at any participating lottery retailer. Anything over that limit, and winners are required to report it to the Virginia Lottery to claim the prize, according to Jones.
The Virginia Lottery is responsible for verifying the identity and address of any winner over $600.
'We run those names through our internal system to ensure that they're not the members of the lottery playing themselves,' Jones said.
This creates internal accountability, but FOIA gives the public a measure of external accountability, Rhyne said.
Any winner whose prize value is $1 million or greater will not be disclosed through the Freedom of Information Act, which allows citizens to request the name, hometown and amount won of a lottery winner, according to the bill. That part of state law was previously set at $10 million or greater.
Other U.S. states have varying disclosure amounts and rules. A handful of states do not allow any anonymity. In Michigan, players winning over $10,000 from in-state games are allowed to stay anonymous if they choose.
In Florida, collecting any amount over $250,000 gives winners the option to have their personal information temporarily disclosed for 90 days after the winnings are collected. After 90 days their information is no longer private.
Wyatt's bill sailed through the House with unanimous votes. Three Democrats and one Republican voted against it in the Senate. The bill currently sits with the governor, awaiting further action.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court helps DOGE keep information from watchdog group
The Supreme Court granted the Trump administration's bid to keep information about the inner workings of the Department of Government Efficiency from being disclosed to a watchdog group while litigation continues in the case. Over dissent from the court's three Democratic appointees, the order follows a temporary reprieve in DOGE's favor on May 23 from Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts' administrative stay was in effect pending further word from him or the full court, which came Friday when the justices sent the case back to the lower court, reasoning that a judge's order against DOGE was too broad. The high court order was issued along with another order favoring DOGE in a separate case involving access to Social Security data. In this watchdog case, the federal government argued that DOGE isn't technically an agency and is therefore exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. The government argued that a district court judge in D.C. had turned FOIA 'on its head' by ordering DOGE to 'submit to sweeping, intrusive discovery just to determine if USDS [DOGE] is subject to FOIA in the first place.' A federal appellate panel refused to halt the judge's discovery order, and the administration appealed to the justices for emergency relief, as it has done in several cases during Donald Trump's second term. The government urged the justices to reject what it called a 'fishing expedition' into 'sensitive executive-branch functions.' The watchdog group that brought the lawsuit, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, opposed DOGE's urgent bid. CREW said the government was trying to prematurely get the justices to decide that DOGE isn't an agency subject to FOIA, arguing that what's at issue here is the 'far narrower antecedent question: whether the court of appeals clearly and indisputably erred in refusing to disturb a district court order allowing limited discovery to ascertain DOGE's agency status.' It said the government 'has raised a fact-intensive legal issue supported by unreliable evidence, did so in a manner it was explicitly told would lead to discovery, and now needs to respond.' Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Norfolk judge grants bond to Harris Teeter guard accused of assault
NORFOLK, Va. (WAVY) — A Norfolk General District Court judge granted bond to the Harris Teeter security guard accused of beating a man inside the store. Kharel Jones-White is facing one charge of malicious wounding related to the incident. He was working as an armed, uniformed security guard on the evening of June 2. Several family members and Harris Teeter employees as well as a man who said he was White-Jones' boss at the security company were in court to testify and show support. NPD: Man seriously injured after assault at W Ocean View Ave. Harris Teeter A witness in the case testified that White-Jones and the victim entered the store at the same time that night. A short time later, the witness said, White-Jones approached him and told him there was an issue with the man. 'The victim kept going at [White-Jones],' the store employee told the court, describing antagonizing behavior. Then, a physical altercation broke out between the two men. The witness told the court that White-Jones had the man in a headlock. Then, the man attempted to grab White-Jones' holstered handgun. White-Jones then stepped away to hand the gun to an employee, according to the witness. At some point, the victim began attempting to hit or stab White-Jones with a gold object, according to the witness and the defense attorney. The witness said the victim was trying to strike back during the entire incident. The commonwealth's attorney on the case opposed the bond motion, arguing that White-Jones had exercised excessive force, breaking the victim's eye socket and spilling 'a substantial amount of blood.' The prosecutor said that video, which was not show in court, captured the incident and showed White-Jones using OC spray before straddling the victim and punching him in the eye. 'This looks like that scene from 'No Country for Old Men,'' the judge remarked, when shown images from the security video. White-Jones' attorney said that he followed DCJS (Department of Criminal Justice Services) protocol. The judge ultimately released White-Jones on a $7,500 personal recognizance bond. He's prohibited from contacting the victim. A preliminary hearing date was set for August 6. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court keeps DOGE records blocked in watchdog group's challenge
By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court extended on Friday its block on judicial orders requiring the Department of Government Efficiency to turn over records to a government watchdog group that sought details on the entity established by President Donald Trump and previously spearheaded by his billionaire former adviser Elon Musk. The court put on hold Washington-based U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper's orders for DOGE to respond to requests by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for information about its operations. The judge concluded that DOGE likely is a government agency covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The brief, unsigned order said that portions of one of the judge's decisions "are not appropriately tailored" and that "separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications." The court sent the case back to a lower appeals court to narrow the judge's directives. The court's three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - dissented from Friday's decision. In a separate case, the Supreme Court on Friday permitted DOGE broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. DOGE has played a central role in Trump's efforts to downsize and reshape the U.S. government including by slashing the federal workforce and dismantling certain agencies. The watchdog group, called CREW, said its intention was to shed light on what it called DOGE's secretive structure and operations. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and his once-close relationship with Trump has since unraveled publicly, a split that followed Musk's recent attacks on the president's sweeping tax and spending bill and played out dramatically on social media on Thursday. CREW sued to obtain an array of records from DOGE through the FOIA statute, a law that allows the public to seek access to records produced by government agencies. It sought information on DOGE's activities over its role in the mass firings and cuts to federal programs pursued since the Republican president returned to office in January. "While we're obviously disappointed that the Supreme Court chose to revise aspects of our discovery requests, we're pleased that the court allowed discovery to proceed," said CREW spokesperson Jordan Libowitz after Friday's decision. Prior to Friday's order, Chief Justice John Roberts had imposed a temporary pause on Cooper's orders to give the court more time to consider the dispute. The Trump administration contends that DOGE is an advisory entity and not subject to FOIA. In response, CREW sought information to determine whether DOGE is subject to FOIA because it wields the kind of authority of an agency independent of the president. Cooper ruled in April that DOGE must turn over some records sought by CREW and that the group was entitled to question DOGE official Amy Gleason at a deposition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined on May 14 to put Cooper's order on hold. The administration urged the Supreme Court to act, saying that the judge's orders intruded on the powers of the executive branch and compromised the ability of a wide array of advisers to provide candid and confidential advice to the president. CREW told the justices that siding with the administration in the dispute would give the president "free reign" to create new entities that would "functionally wield substantial independent authority but are exempt from critical transparency laws." In one of his decisions, Cooper said DOGE's operations have been marked by "unusual secrecy." In another, the judge said that the language of Trump's executive orders concerning DOGE suggests that it is "exercising substantial independent authority."
