VIA email: reg.review@nigc.gov 

August 26, 2013 

From: Mr. Ken Bellmard, Kaw Nation Tribal Member/ Kaw Nation Director of Government 

Relations 

Kaw Nation 

Drawer 50 

698 Grandview Drive 

Kaw City, Oklahoma 74641 

To: Ms. Tracie L Stevens, Chairperson 

Mr. Dan Little, Commissioner 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

1441 L Street NW, Suite 9100 

Washington D.C. 20005 

RE: Kaw Nation Comments to NIGC Chairperson Regarding ONE TOUCH BINGO 

PROPOSAL, 25 CFR-502 

Dear Chairperson and Commissioner, 

On August 14, 2013 in Oklahoma City at the NIGC Tribal Consultation held in conjunction with 

the Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association Trade Show and Conference, Kaw Nation Chairman 

Guy Munroe, Mr. Lloyd Pappan Chairman of the Kaw Nation Enterprise Development 

Authority, Mr. Steve York Gaming Consultant and I attended and briefly raised points on record 

as time was limited and several interested tribes were in attendance. I now at this time submit in 

writing these comments for your consideration. 

 

I believe that any analysis of Bingo must include an understanding of the history of Bingo, and 

we ask that you use the following outline to glean the elements which have historically 

constituted what is the game of Bingo: 

1. 1530- “Lo Giucco del Lotto D’Italia” indicating showing Lottery Base. 

2. 1929- “Beano” introduced in America, Carnival Game in Georgia. 

3. 1930- “Bingo” by Lowe of New York and Lester Expansion of Games Played. 

4. 1970’s- “Indian Bingo”. 

5. 1980’s- “Cabazon” case. 

6. 1988- “IGRA is adopted and Passed”. 

From this history it is clear what distinguishes Bingo from other games are elements which 

require human intervention. Bingo traditionally requires human activity to “daub” and “claim”, 

the element of players competing against one another for a prize and the human element of the 

possibility that a Player could “sleep” a bingo and lose on an otherwise possibly winning bingo 

card. A Class III game does require these “human elements”. The new proposal of defining “One 

Touch Bingo” as a Class II game eliminates traditional characteristics of Bingo. The concern 

herein is that this “One Touch Bingo” proposal blurs the line so completely between Class II and 
Class III as to render the classification meaningless. It is concerning that an unintended 

consequence of this “One Touch Bingo” proposal is that the Class II one touch bingo games will 

lead to the demise of Class III gaming in Oklahoma. Although this may be seen as a boon to 

Oklahoma Tribes at first blush, if the State of Oklahoma does not receive compact revenues due 

to the advent of widespread play of Class II one touch bingo, what incentive does the State of 

Oklahoma have to allow the level of gaming exclusivity Oklahoma Tribes now enjoy? I hope 

some thought will be given to this consideration. 

IGRA has clearly stated the different Classes of Gaming, Class I, Class II, and all others as Class 

III, but the NIGC has failed to address Section 2721 of IGRA as to Lotteries. If NIGC truly 

wants to delineate the distinctions between gaming classifications the NIGC needs to deal with 

Section 2721and define a Class III Lottery in an electronic format so as to clarify the distinction 

between Class II and Class III. The electronic format of Technological Aids mentioned in the 

Multi-Media Cases before the 10th Circuit it made it clear related to the need for two Player’s 

participation in a bingo game. We would suggest a review of NIGC bulletin 93-03 as to the 

NIGC’s thought process related to the game called Bingo. I believe a review of these cases and 

earlier NIGC bulletins will be illustrative of the requirement of the need for a two touch type 

Game to clarify bingo in the scope of Class II. 

In summary a game that does not require 1) human activity to “daub” and “claim”, 2) the 

element of players competing against one another for a prize and 3) the game element of the 

possibility that a Player could “sleep” a bingo and lose on an otherwise possibly winning bingo 

card cannot be harmonized as a bingo game in the historical sense, and a game that does not 

include these elements is a Class III game according to the statutory language of IGRA. I thank 

the NIGC for the opportunity to submit my comments. 

Sincerely yours, 

Ken Bellmard, Director of Government Relations for the Kaw Nation