August 12,2013 

Ms. Tracie L. Stevens, Chairwoman 

Mr. Daniel Little, Associate Commissioner 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

1441 L St. NW, Suite 9100 

Washington, DC 20005 

Re: Comments on One-Touch Bingo Reinterpretation 

Dear Commissioners: 

On behalf of the Quapaw Tribal Gaming Agency ("QTGA"), I am pleased to submit the 

following comments on the National Indian Gaming Commission's ('NIGC") proposal to 

reinterpret its position regarding the classification status of one-touch bingo games. The NIGC's 

proposal seeks to bring to an end years of controversy concerning the proper classification of 

bingo games utilizing "auto-daub" or "one-touch" electronic aids. We welcome the proposal and 

strongly support the MIGC's initiative to bring greater clarity and certainty to the tribal gaming 

industry, particularly in relation to technological aids used in conjunction with Class I1 games. 

Following the NIGC's 2008 determination classifying one-touch bingo as a Class III electronic 

facsimile, there was substantial uncertainty among Indian tribes, states, and regulatory bodies as 

to which electronic bingo games should be classified as Class II under the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act ("IGRA"). In the June 4, 2008 letter to the Metlakatla Indian Community, 

former Chairman Hogan opined on the legality of one-touch bingo games and determined that 

they lacked the requisite "competition" element essential to meeting the statutory definition of a 

Class I1 bingo game. Cban Hogan's determination was based, in part, on the fact that 

players were not required to press an additional button or take any other frnrther action to cover 

the numbers on the cards. 

Under IGRA, however, the game of bingo is bingo so long as the game meets the statutory 

elements. The possibility that more than one player can simultaneously get "bingo" does not 

turn a Class TI. bingo game into a Class III game. Nor does the fact that a button is pressed only 

once transform a game of bingo into a Class In electronic facsimile. Moreover, the number of 

potential winners is not an element of the game of bingo. Neither is a manual "cover" 

requirement an appropriate criteria for classification. In fact, none sf these criteria represent 

appropriate legal elements determinative of the class of a game under IGRA. In spite of this, the 

2008 letkr improperly focused its game classification analysis on the number of times a button 

was pushed. 
The QTGA commends the MGC for recognizing the flawed analysis on which the 2008 letter 

was based and for proposing a more legally sound approach to classifying electronic bingo 

games. The NIGC's proposal effectively rebuts the assertions made in the 2008 Decision, 

relying primarily on authoritative case law to conclude that one-touch bingo indeed meets the 

statutory definition of the game of bingo. In so doing, the proposal is more in keeping with 

federal court decisions that have repeatedly affmed that it is permissible for an aid to a Class I1 

bingo game to assist the player by automatically covering number for the player. Although 

IGRA requires that a player cover drawn numbers, federal courts have deemed the mode of 

covering to be irrelevant for game classification purposes. Thus, nothing in IGRA or judicial 

interpretations of IGRA prevents a game of bingo fiom employing an auto-daub feature. 

We applaud the NIGC for proposing a reinterpretation of IGRA that will assure tribal 

governments the full benefit of the law. As recognizd in tke: proposal and reflected in the 

legislative history of IGRA, Congress not only anticipatsd, but in fact intended to facilitate the 

use of modem technology in the play of Class I1 games. In enacting IGRA, Congress was wellaware that Class I1 gaming technology would continue to advance and that the industry would 

likewise evolve to keep up with emerging technologies. We therefore strongly agree with the 

NIGC's position that Wie Commission should give consideration to an interpretation of bingo 

that embraces rather than stifles technological advancements in gaming.'" 

For the reasons set forth above, we urge the NIGC to adopt this proposal to reinterpret its 

position on one-touch bingo. We welcome this proposed change and believe that it will bring 

much-needed clarity, certainty, and stability in relation to the law pertaining to Class I1 gaming. 

Sincerely, 

Barbara Ky ser-Collier 

Director, QTGA