TRADITIONAL 

COUNCTL 

aumMAN 

Joan Gq Jr,, KlsW 

SECRETARY 

Jaw Aak Cbrbdata 

TREASURER 

Rogelii Eliinda, Apicbkuea 

TRADITIOMAL 

TRIBE OR' TEXAS 

Traditional Council 

August 26,20 13 

VIA e-mail to rerz.review@niac. aov 

Tracie Stevens, Chairperson 

Daniel Little, Associate Commissioner 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

1441 L St., N.W., Suite 9100 

Washington, DC 20005 

Re: Comments on "Electronic One Touch Bingo System." 78 Fed. Reg. 37998 (June 

25.2013) 

Dear Chairperson Stevens and Commissioner Little: 

Below please find comments on behalf of the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas 

("Tribe") on the National Indian Gaming Commission's ("NIGC" or "Commission") proposal to 

recognize as Class I1 "server based electronic bingo system games that can be played utilizing 

only one touch of a button ('one touch bingo')." 78 Fed. Reg. at 37998. As detaiIed below, the 

Tribe strongly supports the NIGC's proposal, which is fully consistent with the text of the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRAit), the legislative history, the NIGC's regulations and applicable 

case law. 

The Tribe has a small (1 25 acre) reservation near Eagle Pass, Texas. The Tribe operates a 

modest Class I1 gaming facility on its reservation, which is the primary source of jobs for tribal 

members and revenue for tribal programs. Class I1 gaming is extremely important to the Tribe, 

as the State of Texas has refused to negotiate a Class I11 compact with the Tribe and h fought 

the Tribe's efforts to obtain Class I11 procedures, notwithstanding the fact that the State permits a 

wide range of gaming activities. 

The Tribe agrees with the Commission's proposal "to reinterpret the position regarding 

one touch bingo as set forth in the Metlakatla Ordinance disapproval." 78 Fed. Reg. at 37999, 
Tracie Stevens, Chairperson 

Daniel LittIc, Commissioner 

August 26,2013 

Page 2 

The Metlaksltla disapproval was issued in 2008 in rcsponse to a tribal ordinance amendment that 

sought to clarify that: 

Class II gaming includes an electronic, computer or other 

technologic aid to the game of bingo that, as part of an 

electronically linked bingo system, assists the player by covering, 

without further action by the player, numbers or other designations 

on the player's electronic bingo card(s) when the numbers or other 

designations are electronically determined and elcctronicaily 

displayed to the player. 

- Id. This type of auto-daub aid feature often is referred to as "one touch" since, once activated, 

Curther action by the player during the game is not required. 

The fomcr NIGC Chairman took the position in the Metlakatla ordinance disapproval 

("Ordinance Letter") that the use of the aid feature described above would convert a Class I1 

bingo game into a Class TI1 game. The Ordinance Letter included two arguments to support this 

position: (1) the IGKA requirement that a bingo game must be won by the first person to cover 

the winning numbers requires competition? which is lacking in a bingo game played with one 

touch auto-daub; and (2) by "allowing the game system, rather than the player, to 'cover' the 

bingo card incorporates all chardcteristics of the game of bingo into an electronic machine and 

system, and thereby renders one touch bingo a Class 111 electronic facsimile of a game of 

chance." 78 Fed. Reg. at 37999. 

As detailed below, the 'I'ribe agrees with the Commission that the two arguments 

expressed in the Ordinance Letter were incorrect as a matter of law. Contrary to the views set 

forth in that earlier letter, the use of the one touch auto-daub feature in connection wih a linked 

bingo game is consistent with the IGRA's definition of bingo and does not convert a Class I1 

bingo game into ct Class IJI facsimile. 

1. The Use of OneTouch Auto-Daub is Consistent with the ERA Definition of 

Bingo. 

As has been held by the federal courts, the three statutory requirements of bingo set forth 

in the IGRA are the sole legal requirements for a game to qualify as bingo. United States v. 162 

MeaaMania Gambling Deviccs, 23 1 F.3d 7 I3 (1 0th Cir. 2000); United States v. 103 Elec. 

Gamhlin~ Devices, 223 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2000). Nevertheless, the Ordinance Letter asserted 

that the use of one touch auto-daub prevents a game from qualifying as Class I1 bingo, even if it 

satisfies the IGRA requirements for bingo in all othcr rcspccts. According to the Ordinance 

Letter, the "first person to cover" requirement in the IGRA definition of bingo requires 

competiiion between players and that there can be competition in a bingo game o& if the 

players are permitted to "sleep" a bingo by not covering numbers or other designations that are 

drawn or electronically determined and displayed to the players that would result in a winning 
Tracie Stevens, Chairperson 

Daniel Little, Commissioner 

August 26,201 3 

Page 3 

pattern. The Tribe agrees with the Commission that the IGRA definition of bingo does not 

support such a requirement. 

In fact, nothing about the phrase "first person to cover" or any other aspect of the IGRA 

definition of bingo suggests that the ability to sleep a bingo is a required element of the game. 

Indeed, in determining whether a game satisfied the statutory eIements of bingo, the courts have 

evaluated what it means for a player to "cover" the numbers on a bingo card when electronic 

covering is used. U.S. v. 103 Elac. Gambling Devices, No. 98-1 984, 1998 WL 827586, at *6 

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 1998), affd 223 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2000). In rejecting the argument that 

MegaMania failed to satisfy the definition of bingo because of its electronic daub feature, the 

court stated that " [t] here is nothing in IGRA . . . that requires a player to independently locate 

each called number on each of the player's cards and manually 'cover' each number 

independently and separately." Id. To the contrary, the court emphasized that IGRA "merely 

require[s] that a player cover the numbers without specifying how they must be covered. " Id. 

Thus, the manner in which playas cover numbers on their card(s) is irrelevant.' 

Whether or not one touch auto-daub aid is utilized, the game is still won by the first 

person to cover the winning bingo pattern based on the sequence of bingo numbers for that game 

and the other cards in play. The first player is the one who covers the wirming bingo pattern in 

the fewest auantitv of bingo numbers drawnldetermined for that game. Nothing about the autodaub feature changes the quantity of bingo numbers necessary to be the fmt player with the 

winning bingo pattern. Even with auto-daub the "cover" function is performed during the game's 

natural progression, only after each release of balls, and thus IGRA's sequencing requirement 

that the cover take place after the release of bingo numbers continues to be satisfied. Auto-daub 

cannot operate independent of the player, and it has no impact on the outcome of the game. The 

statutory requirements of bingo are satisfied so long as numbers covered when similarly 

numbered objects are drawn or electronically determined. The one touch auto-daub aid feature 

merely assists the player with tracking and covering numbers so the player will not miss a win? 

Further, the Ordinance Letter was fundamentally wrong that the element of competition 

in a bingo game is defined by the ability to sleep a bingo. Rather, the competition lies not in the 

1 The Ordinance Letter cited a 2003 opinion from the NIGC Office of General Counsel as support. 

However, such opinions are not final agency action. Instead, they constitute only the legal opinions of the NIGC's 

lawyers. As explained by the Tenth Circuit Corn of Appeals in Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma v. National 

Jndian Gaming commission, 327 F.3d 1019, 1043 (10th Cir. 2003): 

[A]n agency's opinion letter is not binding, nor, unlike an NIGC regulation 

enacted pursuant to the rigors of the Administrative Procedure Act, is it entitled 

to any deference. Instead, the NIGC's opinion letter is at most persuasive 

authority; it is entitled only to that weight that its power to persuade compels. 

In the 2003 opinion the Ofice of General CounseI opinion cites to no authority in making its argument that IGRAts 

language implies a specific kind of either physical or electronic participation and is othemise unpersuasive. 

2 ThL is especially important when a ptayer is playing multiple bingo cards, as is common in both Indian and 

non-Indian bingo halls. 
Tracie Stevens, Chairperson 

Daniel Little, Commissioner 

August 26,20 13 

Page 4 

ability to sleep, but in the fact that each player is cornpcting against the other players in the game 

to be the first to cover a game-winning pattern on hisher bingo card based on the results of a 

random ball draw or selection of bingo numbers. Whether or not a player wins depends on the 

cards in play by that player and other players the unique sequence of bingo numbers 

drawddetermined for that game. This competition between the players is present whether or not 

a player is permitted to "sleep" a bingo. As correctly noted by the Commission, l1[w]hether a 

player presses a button one time or two, the player is engaging with the machine, participating in 

the bingo game, and competing with fellow players on the electronically linked bingo system." 

78 Fed. Reg. at 37999. 

In other words, the use of the one touch auto-daub feature does nothing to disturb the 

competition between players. The aid feature can only be used in the context of an actual bingo 

game where multiple players with unique bingo cards compete and play against a common ball 

draw. The players play against each other in exactly the same way as they do in any other bingo 

game. The only difference is that the aid assists the player with tracking and covering the 

numbers, much like the agents the NIGC Office of General Counsel has consistently opined are 

permissible. See, u, Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, National Indian Bingo Game 

Classification Up. (Nov. 14,2000), available at 

http://www.nigc. govff ortals/O/NIGC%20Uploads/redingroomlgameopinions/bingo/nationlindi 

anbingol11400.~dl).~ For this reason, the Tribe agrees with the Commission that "the previous 

interpretation's requirement that the cover of the bingo card be done manually by the player 

through an additional pressing of a button is an additional requirement not mandated by the 

statute." 78 Fed. Reg. at 37999. 

l'he Ordinance Letter suggested that it was based on how the game of bingo was 

"traditionally" played. However, the IGRA explicitly recobpized that the game of bingo it 

authorized was not limited to the children's paper game, and explicitly authorized the use of 

technologic aids in connection therewith. Accordingly, it is the statutory definition of bingo and 

not tradition that controls whether a game meets the definition of Class XI bingo. As explained 

by the Ninth Circuit: 

The Government's efforts to capture more completely the Platonic 

"essence" of traditional bingo are not helpful. Whatever a nostalgic 

inquiry into the vital characteristics of the game as it was played in 

our childhoods or home towns might discover, IGRA's three 

explicit criteria, we hold, constitute thc sole requirements for 

a game to count as class 11 bingo. 

There would have been no point to Congress's putting the three 

very specific factors in the statute if there were also other, implicit 

criteria. The three included in the statutc are in no way arcane if 

3 Further, the one touch aid feature requires the player to take an affirmative action to begin play and cannot 

operate unless at least two players have purchased bingo cards for that game. 
Tmie Stevens, Chairperson 

Daniel Little, Commissioner 

August 26,2013 

Page 5 

one knows anything about bingo, so why would Congress have 

included them if they were not meant to be exclusive? 

Further, IGRA includes within its definition of bingo "pulltabs, . . . punch boards, tip jars, [am instant bingo . . . [if played in 

the same location as the game commonly known as bingo]," 25 

U.S.C. $2703(7)(A)(i), none of which are similar to the traditional 

numbered ball, multi-player, card-based game we played as 

children. . . . hstant bingo, for example, is as the Fifth Circuit 

explained in Julius M. Israel Lodge of B'nai B'rith No. 21 13 v. 

Commissioner, 98 F.3d 190 (5th Cir. I996), a completely different 

creature from the classic straight-line game. Instead, instant bingo 

is a self-contained instant-win game that does not depend at all on 

balls drawn or numbers called by an external source. See id. at 

192-93. 

Moreover, 5 2703(7)(A)(i)'s definition of class I1 bingo includes 

"other games similar to bingo," 25 U.S,C. 4 2703(7)(A)(i), 

explicitly precluding any reliance on the exact attributes of the 

children's pastime. 

103 EIectronic Gambling Devices, 223 F.3d at 1096. See also 162 MeaaMania Gambling 

Devices, 23 1 F.3d at 723. ("While the speed, appearance and stakes associated with MegaMania 

are different from traditional, manual bin o, MegMania meets all of the statutory criteria of a f Class I1 game, as previously discussed. "). 

In the preamble to its 1992 definition regulations, the NIGC stated: 

[One] commenter suggested that class I1 gaming be limited to games involving 

group participation where all players play at the same time against each other for 

a common prize. In the view of the Commission, Congress enumemted those 

games that are classified as class I1 gaming (with the exception of "games 

similar to bingo"). Adding to the statutory criteria would serve to confuse rather 

than clarify. Therefore, the Comrnhsion rejected this suggestion, 

[Another] commenter questioned whether the definition of bingo in the IGRA 

limits the presentation of bingo to its classic fonn. The Commission does not 

believe Congress intended to limit bingo to its classic form. Tf it had, it could 

have spelled out further requirements such as cards having the letters "B" "I" 

'74" "G" "0" across the top, with numbers 1-1 5 in the first column, etc. In 

defining class I1 to include games similar to bingo, Congress intended to hclude 

more than "bingo in its classic formt1 in that class. 

. . . Congress enumerated the games that fall within class IT except for games 

similar to bingo. For games similar to bingo, the Commission added a definition 

that includes the three criteria for bingo and, in addition, requires that the game 

not be a house banking game as defined in the regulations. The Commission 
Tracie Stevens, Chairperson 

Daniel Little, Commissioner 

August 26,2013 

Page 6 

While Congress was clear that tribal bingo was not limited by traditional notions of the 

game, it was equally clear that it intended for tribes to have "maximum flexibilityt' to use 

"modem" technology to conduct bingo games. S. Rep. No. 100-446, at 9 (1988), reprinted in 

1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 307 1,3079. In this regard, it is relevant that this type of bingo aid feature 

predates passage of the IGM in 1988.' 

It also is relevant that this very same bingo aid feature is widely permitted today by the 

federal government on U.S. military reservations and in many other non-Indian bingo facilities. 

The Commission's proposed interpretation is consistent with Congress' intent that tribes have 

"maximum flexibility" to use such "modern" technology to play bingo games, and in its statutory 

authorization for tribes to use such aids. As the Commission correctly noted, it "should give 

consideration to an interpretation of bingo that embraces rather than stifles technological 

advancements in gaming." 78 Fed. Reg. at 388000. 

2. The One Touch Auto-Daub Feature Would Not Transform the Game of Bingo 

into a Class ITI Facsimile. 

believes that Congress did not intend other criteria to be used in classifying 

games in class 11. 

Definitions under the Indian Gaming Reguhtory Act, 57 Fed. Reg. 12,382, 12,383, 12,387 (April 

9, 1992). 

S For example, an auto-daub aid feature for bingo was patented in 1986. As described in Electronic Card and 

Board Game, U.S. Patent No. 4,624,462 (Nov, 25, 1986): 

The primary objective of the invention is to provide an electronic card and board 

game which relieves the player hm the tedious and error-prone operation of 

manual marking matches on the game card. In particular, it is the objective of 

the invention to provide a completely automated bingo game in which the player 

does not have even to touch or watch the game card or the game board at any 

time during successive rounds of the game, whereas the caller has only to push a 

sjngle button to control the game. It is the further objective of the invention to 

provide a design of the game board which facilitates a broad and easy selection 

of the game cards and games being played with the help of the same game 

board. An additional objective of the invention B to preclude unauthorizud or 

untimely change of the game card by the player. 

In fact, fully slectromuchanical linked aids to the game of bingo featuring full auto-daub were developed as early as 

1956 which allowed a player to "either participate in illuminating the numbers or sit back and watch his board 

operate automatically" and ensured that the "player does not have to watch or exert himself play a board to be 

assured of winning if in fact tho board before him comes up with a winning combination.'' U.S. Patent No. 

2,760,6 19 (Aug. 28, 1956). See also. e,P:&, Electrically Operated Bingo Game Apparatus, U.S. Patent No. 3,67 1 $4 1 

(June 20, 1072). Moreover, linked electronic gaming systems were well-knawn before 1988. See. e.q., Video 

Consultants of Nebraska. Inc. v. Douglas, 367 N.W.2d 697,699 (Neb. 1985) ("Each location consists of one or more 

lottery game terminals connected to an agent terminal.") 
Tracie Stevens, Chairperson 

Daniel Little, Commissioner 

August 26,20 13 

Page 7 

The use of the one touch auto-daub feature does not transform a game from Class I1 

bingo into a Class 111 facsimile. As explained by the Commission: "the previous interpretation 

concluded 'as it is applied to bingo, . . . the "except when" language of 502.8 [] requireis] same - 

even minimal participation in the game by the players above and beyond the mere pressing of a 

button to begin the game.' We find this interpretation in error because whether a game 

constitutes bingo or not cannot be reduced to the number of times a button is pushed. Rather, as 

set out above, we must look to whether the statutory elements of the game are met." 78 Fed. 

Reg. at 38000. The Commission's position is fully consistent with the statute and regulations. 

The IGRA provides that Class I1 gaming does not include "electronic or 

elecrromechanical facsimiles of any game of chancc," 25 U.S.C. $ 2703(7)(B)(ii), however, the 

term "facsimile" is not defined by the statute. The Commission has defined facsimile to mean: 

Electronic or electronaechunical facsimile means a game played in 

an electronic or electromechanical format that replicates a game of 

chance by incorporating all of the characteristics of the game, 

except when, for bingo, Iotto, and other games similar to bingo, the 

electronic or electromechanical format broadens participation by 

allowing multi~le players to play with or against each other rather 

than with or against a machine. 

25 C.F.R. Ij 502.8 (emphasis added). Thus, the definition provides that a bingo game can be 

played in an "electronic or electromechanical format" without becoming a facsimile as long as 

the format requires the players to play with or against each other rather than with or against a 

rnachinc6 

The Ordinance Letter failed to recognize that a format that requires players to play with 

or against each other necessarily is one that does not incorporate or repIicate all of the features of 

the bingo game. The most fundamcntal aspect of the game -players competing against each 

other with different bingo cards against a common bail draw - is not electronic or automatic. 

The game is, in fact, a live bingo game that is taking place across a linked network of actual 

players. This remains the case whcther or not auto-daub is used. Stated another way, the 

fundamental characteristics of the game are preserved, unaltered by the game's electronic format. 

As explained by the NIGC: 

IGRA permits the play of bingo, lotto, and other games similar to 

bingo in an electronic or electromechanical format, even a whodly 

electronic format, provided that multiple players are playing with 

or against each other. These playcrs may be playing at the same 

facility or via links to players in other facilities. A manual 

component to the name is not necessary. What IGRA does not 

6 The one touch auto-daub aid feature would, in the context of an electronically linked bingo game, assist the 

player and the playing of the game by tracking and covering bingo numbers for the player. As such, it falls squarely 

within the Commission's definition of electronic, computer, or other technologic aids found at 25 C.F.R. 4 502.7. 
Tracie Stevens, Chairperson 

Daniel Little, Commissioner 

August 26,2013 

Page 8 

dlow with regard to bingo, lotto, and other games similar to bingo, 

is a wholly electronic version of the game that does not broaden 

participation, but instead permits a player to play alone with or 

against a machine rather than with or against other players, 

67 Fed. Reg. 41,166,41,171 (June 17,2002) (emphasis added). 

The NIGC's existing definition of fasimile is consistent with Iegislative history and case 

law. The legislative history indicates that Congress did not intend the facsimile prohibition to 

restrict the use of electronics to play games that meet the IGRA definition of bingo. Instead, the 

term facsimile was used as shorthand for games where, unlike true bingo games, the player plays 

only with or against the machine and not with or against other players. As explained in the 

Senate Report: 

The Committee specifically rejects any inference that tribes should 

restrict class I1 gmes to existing games [sic] sizes, levels of 

participation, or current technology. The Committee intends that 

tribes be dven the ovxlortunity to take advantage of modern 

methods of conducting class I1 names and the language regarding 

technology is designed to provide maximum flexibilitv. In this 

regard, the Committee recognizes that tribes may wish to join with 

other tribes to coordinate their class I1 operations and thereby 

enhance the potential of increasing revenues. For example, linking 

particivant xllavers at various reservations whether in the same or 

different States, by means of telephone, cable, television or 

satellite may be a reasonable awmoach for tribes to take. 

Simultaneous games participation between and among reservations 

can be made practical by use of computers and 

telecommunications technolorn as Iong as the use of such 

technology does not change the fundamental characteristics of the 

bingo or lotto names and as long as such games are otherwise 

operated in accordance with applicable Federal communications 

law. In other words, such technolonv would merely broaden the 

potential mrtici~ation levels and is readily distinmishable from the 

use of electronic facsimiles in which a single participant plays a 

game with or against a machine rather than with or against other 

players. 

S. Rep. No. 100-446, at 9 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 307 1,3079 (emphases added). 

Thus, as now recognized by the Commission, the use of technology, even if it allows 

fundamental characteristics of bingo to be played in an electronic format, does not necessarily 

make a bingo game a "facsimile." Rather, a bingo game played using technologic aids (which 

are expressly permi~ed by 25 U. S. C. § 2703 (7)(A)(i)), only becomes a facsimile if the 
Tracie Stevens, Chairperson 

Daniel Little, Commissioner 

August 26,2013 

Page 9 

technolo y pennits the player to play "with or against a machine rather than with or against other 

players. " g 

The courts have agreed with this interpretation, In the MegWa cases, the courts ruled 

that MegaMania is not an exact copy or duplicate of bingo and thus not a facsimile because the 

game of bingo is not wholly incorporated into the player station; rather, the game of bingo is 

independent from the player station, so that the players are competing against other players in the 

same bingo game and are not simply playing against the machine, 103 Electronic Gambling 

Devices, 223 F.3d at 1100; 162 MeaaMania Garnbliw Devices, 23 1 F.3d at 724.' The addition 

of a one touch auto-daub aid feature does not change the fact that players are competing against 

each other in a common game. 

Thus, no additionaI participation is required to prevent the game from becoming a 

facsimile. Instead, the NIGC definition of facsimile correctly recognizes thaq regardless of the 

number of electronic aids used in a bingo game, the game does not become a facsimile if "the 

electronic or electromechanical format broadens participation by allowing multiple players to 

play with or against each other rather than with or against a machine. lf 25 C.F,R, § 502.8 

(emphasis added). As long as there are players playing against each other, the game is not a 

facsimile. 

7 A good example of a facsimile of a game of chance is video poker, when played in self-contained game 

terminals. Such a game, although it uses poker graphics and terminology, is a wholly electronic game that does not 

germit competition among pIayers. 

The applicable test for distinguishing between aids and facsimiles was explained by the Tenth Circuit: 

Courts reviewing the legislative history of the Gaming Act have recognized an 

electronic, computer or technological aid must possess at least two 

characteristics: (1) the "aid" must operate to broaden the participation levels of 

participants in a common game, Spokane Indian Tribe v. United States, 972 

F.2d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir. 1992); and (2) the "aid" is distlngulshable from a 

"facsimile" where a single participant plays with or against a machine 

v. 

rather 

Ndonal 

than 

Indian 

with or 

Gamins! 

against 

Comm'n, 

other players. 

14 F.3d 

p 

633,636-37 (D.C. Cir.), e. 

denied, 5 12 U .S. 122 1 (1 994) -=on m. Courts have adopted a plainmeaning interpretation of the term "facsimile" and recognized a facsimile of a 

game is one that replicates the characteristics of the underlying game. 

Svcum Band of Mission us v. R-, 54 F.3d 535,542 (9th Cir. 1994) 

("the first dictionary definition of 'facsimile' is 'an exact and detailed copy of 

something.' " (quoting Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 8 13 (1976))), m. 

denied, 5 16 U.S. 912 (1995); Cabazon 11,827 F. Supp. at 32 (same); Cabm, 14 F.3d at 636 (stating "[a]s commonIy understood, facsimiles are exact 

copies, or duplicates."). 

162 Memania Gamblim Devices, 23 f F.3d at 724 (emphasis added). 
Tracic Stevens, Chairperson 

Daniel Little, Commissioner 

August 26,20 13 

Page 10 

Conclusion 

The Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas is pleased that the Commission has decided to 

clarify that a game that is otherwise Class I1 bingo is not converted into a Class I11 game through 

the addition of a one touch auto-daub feature. Congress provided a bright line ast lo distinguish 

electronically-aided Class TI games from Class 111 games. That line is not based on the 1-lumber 

of prayer "iouches" required to interact with the game. Rather, Class 11 bingo includes any game 

that meets the three statutory requirements set forth by Congress. Such games may be played 

wit11 any form of electronic, cornpuler or other technologic aid, so long as the aid does not permit 

a single player 10 play alone with or against Ihe machine, 

Juan Garza, Jr., Chan 

Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas