ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

JENNIFER BEAR EAGLE 

3610 N 1631d Plaza 

Omaha, NE 68 1 16 

T: 402.333.4053 

F: 402.333.4761 

E: jbeareagle@ndnlaw.com 

www.ndnlaw.com 

August 26,20 13 

SENT VIA E-MAIL 

reg.review@,nigc.gov 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

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

Washington, DC 20005 

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

25,2013) 

On behalf of the Santee Sioux Nation ("Tribe"), I thank you for the opportunity to 

provide comments on the National Indian Gaming Commission's (the "NIGC") 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 bingot)."' The Tribe strongly supports the NIGCts 

proposal, which is fully consistent with the text of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA"), 

the legislative history, the NIGCts regulations and applicable case law. 

The Santee Sioux Nation and the Ohiva Casino & Resort 

The Santee Sioux Nation is located in rural northeast Nebraska on the Santee Sioux 

Indian Reservation ("Santee Reservation") along the Missouri River and directly south of the 

State of Nebraska. The Tribe operates the Ohiya Casino & Resort, a Class I1 gaming 

facility/hotel/restaurant. 

The State of Nebraska has not entered into a gaming compact with the Tribe; nor has the 

State entered into a gaming compact with any of the three other Indian tribes headquartered in 

Nebraska. It is highly unlikely that this will change absent a State constitutional amendment. As 

a result, all Indian gaming in Nebraska is currently Class I1 gaming.2 

The States of South Dakota and Iowa both permit Class 111 gaming and have entered into 

Tribal-State Gaming Compacts with Indian tribes located in those states. The Santee 

Reservation's location means that it faces competition just across the border from Class I11 

' 78 Fed. Reg. 37998-38000 (June 25,2013). 

2 However, the Department of the Interior has determined that it is lawhl to conduct the following Class 111 games 

on its lands in Nebraska subject to certain restrictions: (1) keno, (2) parimutuel horse racing, and (3) lotteries. Letter 

from Aurene M. Martin, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, U.S. Dept. of Interior to Hon. Roger 

Trudell, Chairman, Santee Sioux Nation (June 29,2004). 

CALIFORNIA COLORADO MICHIGAN MINNESOTA. NEBRASKA NORTH DAKOTA SOUTH DAKOTA WASHINGTON DC 

www.ndnlaw.com 
National Indian Gaming Commission 

August 26,20 13 

Page 2 

gaming. The Ohiya Casino does not offer any Class 111 games and this interpretation directly 

and deeply impacts the Tribe. 

Reinterpretation of the Metlakatla Ordinance Disapproval 

The Santee Sioux Nation agrees with the Commission's proposal to reinterpret the 

position regarding one touch bingo as set forth in the Metlakatla Ordinance disapproval.3 The 

Tribe further agrees that the arguments expressed in the Metlakatla ordinance disapproval letter 

("Ordinance Letter") were incorrect as a matter of law.4 The use of the one touch auto-daub 

feature in connection with a linked bingo game is consistent with the IGRA's definition of bingo 

and does not convert a Class I1 bingo game into a Class I11 facsimile. 

The Use of OneTouch Auto-Daub is Consistent with the IGRA Definition of 

Bingo. 

The three statutory requirements of bingo set forth in the IGRA are the sole legal 

requirements for a game to qualify as bingo.5 Nevertheless, the Ordinance Letter asserted that 

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

game satisfies the IGRA requirements for bingo in all other respects. According to the 

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

requires competition between players and that there can be competition in a bingo game & 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 pattern. The Tribe agrees with the Commission that the IGRA definition of bingo does 

not support such a requirement. 

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 elements of bingo, the courts have 

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

The Metlakatla disapproval was issued in 2008 in response to a tribal ordinance amendment that sought to clarify 

that: 

Class I1 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 electronically displayed 

to the player. 

78 Fed. Reg. at 37999. This type of auto-daub aid feature often is referred to as "one touch'' since, once activated, 

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

The Ordinance Letter took the position that the use of the aid feature would convert a Class I1 bingo game into a 

Class I11 game, including two arguments to support this position: (1) the IGRA 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 characteristics of the game of bingo into an electronic machine and system, and thereby renders 

one touch bingo a Class I11 electronic facsimile of a game of chance." 78 Fed. Reg. at 37999. 

United States v. 162 MegaMania Gambling Devices, 231 F.3d 713 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. 103 Elec. 

Gambling Devices, 223 F.3d 109 1 (9th Cir. 2000). 
National Indian Gaming Commission 

August 26,2013 

Page 3 

covering is used.6 To the contrary, the court has emphasized that IGRA "merely require[s] that a 

player cover the numbers without specifying how they must be ~overed."~ Thus, the manner in 

which players 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 winning bingo pattern in the fewest quantity of bingo numbers 

drawddetermined for that game. Nothing about the auto-daub feature changes the quantity of 

bingo numbers necessary to be the first player with the winning bingo pattern. Even with autodaub, 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 are 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.9 

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 does not lie in 

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

game to be the first to cover a game-winning pattern on hislher 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 

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

a player is permitted to "sleep" a bingo.'' 

Quite simply, the use of the one touch auto-daub feature does not disturb the competition 

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

6 "There 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." U.S. v. 103 Elec. Gambling 

Devices, No. 98-1984, 1998 WL 827586, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 1998), affd 223 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2000). ' Id. 

The Ordinance Letter cited a 2003 opinion fiom 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 Court of Appeals in Seneca-Cavuaa Tribe of Oklahoma v. National Indian 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 Office of General Counsel opinion cites to no authority in making its argument that IGRA's 

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

9 This is especially important when a player is playing multiple bingo cards, as is common in both Indian and nonIndian bingo halls. 

lo As correctly noted by the Commission, "[wlhether 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. 
National Indian Gaming Commission 

August 26,2013 

Page 4 

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. 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."" 

The Ordinance Letter further suggested that it was based on how the game of bingo was 

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

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

technologic aids in connection. Accordingly, it is the statutory definition of bingo and not 

tradition that controls whether a game meets the definition of Class I1 bingo. 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 flexibility" to use "modern" technology to conduct 

bingo games.12 In this regard, it is relevant that this type of bingo aid feature predates passage of 

the IGRA in 1988.13 

This very same 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 noted, it "should give consideration to an interpretation of bingo 

that embraces rather than stifles technological advancements in gaming."14 

11 78 Fed. Reg. at 37999. 

12 S. Rep. No. 100-446, at 9 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3071,3079. 

l3 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 fiom 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 

single 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 is to 

preclude unauthorized or untimely change of the game card by the player. 

In fact, fully electromechanical 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 the board before him comes up with a winning combination." U.S. Patent No. 

2,760,619 (Aug. 28, 1956). See also. ex., Electrically Operated Bingo Game Apparatus, U.S. Patent No. 3,671,041 

(June 20, 1072). Moreover, linked electronic gaming systems were well-known before 1988. See, 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.") 

14 78 Fed. Reg. at 38000. 
National Indian Gaming Commission 

August 26,2013 

Page 5 

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

into a Class 111 Facsimile. 

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

bingo into a Class I11 facsimile; and the Commission's proposal is fully consistent with the 

statute and regulations. The IGRA provides that Class I1 gaming does not include "electronic or 

electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance," 25 U.S.C. tj 2703(7)(B)(ii), however, the 

term "facsimile" is not defined in the IGRA. The Commission has defined facsimile to mean: 

Electronic or electromechanical 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, lotto, and other games 

similar to bingo, 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.I5 

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 machine.I6 

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 replicate all of the features of 

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

other with different bingo cards against a common ball 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 whether or not auto-daub is used. The fundamental 

characteristics of the game are preserved, unaltered by the game's electronic format.17 

The NIGC's existing definition of facsimile is consistent with legislative 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 now recognized by 

the Commission, the use of technology, even if it allows fimdamental 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 permitted by 25 U.S.C. tj 

15 25 C.F.R. 5 502.8 (emphasis added). 

16 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. 5 502.7. 17 The NIGC explained: "IGRA permits the play of bingo, lotto, and other games similar to bingo in an electronic or 

electromechanical format, even a wholly electronic format, provided that multiple players are playing with or against 

each other. These players may be playing at the same facility or via links to players in other facilities. A manual 

component to the game is not necessarv. What IGRA does not allow 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. 41 166,41171 

(June 17,2002) (emphasis added). 
National Indian Gaming Commission 

August 26,20 13 

Page 6 

2703(7)(A)(i)), only becomes a facsimile if the technology emits the player to play "with or 

against a machine rather than with or against other players."1 2 

No additi~nal participation is required to prevent the game from becoming a facsimile. 

Instead, the NIGC definition of facsimile correctly recognizes that, 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 ma~hine."'~ As long as there are players playing 

against each other, the game is not a facsimile. 

Conclusion 

The Santee Sioux Nation 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 test to distinguish 

electronically aided Class I1 games fkom Class 111 games. That line is not based on the number 

of player "touches" required to interact with the game. Rather, Class I1 bingo includes game 

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

with any form of electronic, computer, or other technologic aid, so long as the aid does not 

permit a single player to play alone with or against the machine. The Santee Sioux Nation 

strongly supports the NIGC's proposal. 

. --- Sincerely, - .A 

&fer ~ear?33d~le, Esq. 

cc: Thelma Thomas, Ohyia Casino 

Hon. Roger Trudell, Chairman, Santee Sioux Nation 

18 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 permit 

competition among players. 

l9 25 C.F.R. 5 502.8.