COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE 

3050 Tremont Street North Bend, OR 97459 

Phone: (541) 756-0904 Fax: (541) 756-0847 

www.coquilletribe.org 

August 26,2013 

Via e-ma il to reR;r~vi$!w@NlQC.E~w 

The Honorable Tracy Stevens, Chairperson 

The Honorable Dan Little, Associate Commissioner 

National lndian Gaming Commission 

1441 L Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

Re: Comments on reinterpretation of aEency decision regarding classification of "Electronic One 

Touch Binno Svstem." 78 Fed.Reg. 37998 (June 25,20132 

Dear Chairperson Stevens and Commissioner Little: 

The Coquille lndian Tribe (the "Tribe") submits these supplementary comments in support of the 

National lndian Gaming Commission ("NIGC") proposal to clarify its position with respect to the 

permissibility of electronic one touch bingo systems. The Tribe strongly believes that the proposal is 

supported by relevant law and, as a policy matter, is both long overdue and necessary to ameliorate the 

risk of confusion posed by previous agency actions. 

As properly analyzed by the Commission, Class II Bingo, under the IGRA is defined by the 

statutory criteria set forth in the IGRA at 25 U.S.C. 2703(7)(A)(l)(l)-(Ill). Those criteria, and those alone, 

have long been held by the courts to be the only requirements of class II gaming under the IGRA. (See. 

u., United States v.103 Electronic Gambling Devices, 223 F.3d 1091 1096 (2000). Electronic 

presentation of Bingo, expressly authorized by the IGRA, adds no additional requirements to the 

structure or play of the game. Nor do variations on the game play, so long as the statutory criteria are 

preserved. Over a period of years, electronic bingo gaming systems have prevailed over challenges 

aimed at speed of play, structure of prizes and simple attacks on a game deemed too fast and too 

lucrative to be class II under the IGRA. None of these challenges were based in the Statute or in court 

decisions; all of them violated the express intent of Congress in enacting IGRA that tribes have 

"maximum flexibility" in the implementation of technological aids. S.Rep. No. 100-446 at p.A-9. All such 

challenges were rejected by reviewing courts. 

The NIGC's precedent is not so unswerving. Over a period of years, the NIGC has expressed 

concerns that it must somehow impose its own "bright line" between class II and class Ill games, or 

subject lndian class II gaming to attack. The Metlakatla ordinance determination was one instance of 
NlGC action that had the effect of chilling the implementation of electronic class II bingo as provided by 

IGRA. That NlGC action was taken during a period that the NlGC was considering, but ultimately 

withdrawing from consideration, a body of regulations that would have severely restricted electronic 

class II gaming. During approximately the same period, the NlGC Office of General Counsel issued a 

series of "non-binding" advisory opinions that included restrictive language, similar in scope to the 

proposed restrictive regulations that purported to impose additional requirements on electronic bingo 

gaming systems as a condition of treatment as class II games. Notably, much (but not all) of the focus of 

the NlGC fabricated restrictions was the assertion that "one-touch" games could not be class II. The 

NIGC, or its General Counsel, would have imposed a requirement of multiple "touches," minimum 

prizes, and a large array of regulatory requirements that were arbitrary and capricious, with no basis in 

law. The formal regulatory proposal was withdrawn in June, 2008. The Metlakatla Ordinance decision 

of the same week rests on the same flawed analysis as the withdrawn regulation. So do significant 

portions of the NlGC General Counsel Game Classification Advisory Opinions. The NlGC has itself laid 

the foundation for confusion, and for unnecessary attacks on legally supported class II electronic gaming 

under the IGRA. 

The existing NlGC regulations properly track the IGRA in that they permit use of technological 

aids to the game of bingo, so long as the statutory criteria are met, and the player is, in fact, playing the 

game of bingo against other players rather than against a machine. The use of technological aids to 

permit a player to touch a game once to initiate all required daubing actions does not, of itself transform 

a game into class Ill, or a prohibited "facsimile" of the game of bingo. Rather than one touch systems, 

bingo facsimiles would be those that merely give the appearance of a bingo game, but without the 

necessary elements of the game, including competition with other players. 

The Tribe strongly supports the current NlGC proposal to "reinterpret" its position on one touch 

electronic bingo, as expressed in the Metlakatla Ordinance disapproval. It asks, however, that the 

reinterpretation be expressed in broader terms, and that the action not be limited to the Metlakatla 

Ordinance. The NlGC should, additionally fully repudiate inconsistent interpretations that are still extant 

in Game Classification Advisory Opinions. Only then can its position be clear, consistent, and in accord 

with Congressional language and the intent of the IGRA. It is apparent, from the comments submitted 

by the State of South Dakota, that such advisory letters are viewed, from the outside, as Commission 

decisions. Tribes should not be forced to defend against such misunderstandings, and ask the NlGC now 

to make its position clear- so that the interpretation of IGRA will be based on the language of the statute 

and regulations, and not on past errors in staff interpretations. 

Thank you for your careful analysis and efforts to protect the integrity of Indian gaming. 

Respectfully, 

Brenda Meade, Chairperson I 

Coquille Indian Tribe.