Can the New York Racing and Wagering Board approve electronic computer aids to help bingo players track their cards?

Plain-English summary

The Racing and Wagering Board asked whether it could authorize electronic computer aids to help bingo players. The proposed device works like this: a player buys regular paper bingo cards and goes to a computer terminal. The player types each card's number/letter combinations and serial number into the computer. The bingo game then proceeds normally: a caller draws balls from a receptacle, announces the number/letter combinations, and the player enters each call into the computer. The computer registers the calls, identifies any winning card by serial number, and displays an image of the winning card. The player then finds the paper card with that serial number, marks the spots, and submits it for verification and redemption. Use is optional. The computer helps with playing multiple cards at once and accommodating poor eyesight.

The AG said yes, the Board may authorize the device as described.

The analysis runs through New York's gambling-prohibition framework. NY Constitution Article I, § 9 bans gambling unless specifically authorized. Bingo is one of the constitutionally authorized exceptions, but the definition is constrained: Article I, § 9(2) defines bingo as a game "in which prizes are awarded on the basis of designated numbers or symbols on a card conforming to numbers or symbols selected at random." General Municipal Law § 476(3) repeats the definition. The Racing and Wagering Board's regulations in 9 NYCRR Part 5820 implement the framework, including § 5820.15's requirement that the drawn objects or balls conform in size, shape, and weight to ensure randomness.

The AG distinguished the proposed device from electronic bingo rejected in an earlier opinion (Op Atty Gen No. 85-F8). That proposal would have replaced traditional cards with computer-displayed cards and used a central computer to select numbers at random. The AG said the governing law did not contemplate that computerized game.

The 1999 proposal keeps both anchors intact: physical paper cards continue to be the playing instrument, and physical balls drawn from a receptacle continue to determine the numbers. The computer is a viewing and tracking aid, not a replacement for the game's constitutional elements. Players who do not use the computer can play the same game alongside players who do.

The AG cautioned that gambling-prohibition exceptions are construed narrowly, citing Op Atty Gen No. 90-F5. Any deviation from the proposal as described could move the device outside the constitutional safe harbor.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Why is the paper card so important?

The Constitution defines bingo by reference to numbers or symbols "on a card" matching numbers or symbols selected at random. The 1999 proposal retained paper cards, which players marked and submitted as proof of bingo.

What's the difference between this aid and a "tablet" version of bingo?

The AG assessed a particular device that displayed information entered from paper cards while the players still marked and submitted those cards. It did not assess tablet versions. Its earlier opinion rejected a proposal that replaced traditional cards with a computer terminal.

Could this rule have been overridden by Legislature?

The AG said a regulatory amendment could not authorize the earlier computerized bingo proposal because governing law contemplated traditional cards. This opinion does not analyze a legislative or constitutional amendment.

What happens if a hall uses unauthorized electronic bingo?

The opinion does not discuss penalties for an unauthorized electronic game. It says the Board may authorize only the described computer aid and cautions that deviations from the proposal may conflict with the Constitution or State law.

Are pull-tab and similar charitable games on the same footing?

The opinion addresses only the proposed bingo aid. It does not evaluate pull tabs or other charitable games.

Background and statutory framework

Article I, § 9 of the New York Constitution bans gambling unless the Constitution expressly authorizes it. The AG noted later amendments authorizing pari-mutuel horse race betting, bingo and similar games for specified purposes, and the State lottery.

Article I, § 9(2)'s definition of bingo is the limiting text. General Municipal Law § 476(3) parrots the constitutional definition for the statutory framework. Executive Law § 435 vests the Racing and Wagering Board with authority to administer bingo licensing, regulations, and distributor licensing. 9 NYCRR Part 5820 contains the operational regulations.

The 1999 opinion fits within a series of AG opinions on the bingo-electronic-aid boundary. Op Atty Gen No. 85-F8 rejected full electronic bingo. Op Atty Gen No. 90-F5 cautioned about narrow construction of gambling exceptions. The 1999 opinion finds a middle path that keeps the constitutional elements while allowing technological accommodation.

Citations

• NY Const., art. I, § 9 (general gambling prohibition).
• NY Const., art. I, § 9(2) (bingo definition exception).
• General Municipal Law § 476(3) (statutory bingo definition).
• Executive Law § 435(1) (Racing and Wagering Board licensing authority).
• Executive Law § 435(2) (regulation of bingo distributors).
• 9 NYCRR §§ 5820.12 - 5820.14 (sale and price of bingo cards).
• 9 NYCRR § 5820.15 (physical requirements for drawn objects/balls).
• 9 NYCRR §§ 5820.16 - 5820.22 (drawing and verification of numbers).
• Op Atty Gen No. 85-F8 (electronic bingo replacing cards not authorized).
• Op Atty Gen No. 90-F5 (gambling exceptions construed narrowly).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/99-F2_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

NY CONST, ART 1, § 9; 9 NYCRR §§ 5820.12 - 5820.14, 5820.15, 5820.16 - 5820.22. The Racing and Wagering Board may authorize the use and distribution of an electronic computer aide to assist in the play of bingo, provided that the game is played as described in the proposal.

June 8, 1999
Hon. Michael J. Hoblock, Jr.
Chairman
Racing and Wagering Board
1 Watervliet Avenue Ext, Suite 2
Albany, NY 12206-1668

Formal Opinion
No. 99-F2

Dear Chairman Hoblock:
Your counsel has asked whether the Racing and Wagering Board may authorize the use and distribution of "electronic computer aides" to assist bingo players. Your staff has advised us that such computers would assist players but would not replace the traditional elements of bingo. Use of computers would be optional. Your staff has described computer assisted play as follows: a player would purchase regular bingo cards and then go to a computer terminal. The computer screen would display blank cards and the player would manually type the number/letter combinations contained on each paper card and that card's identifying serial number into the computer. The game would then proceed as usual. The caller would draw objects or balls from a receptacle at random and the number/letter combinations drawn would be announced to the players. A player using a computer would type each number/letter combination into the computer as it is called. The computer would register the information entered, identify the winning card by serial number, and display an image of the winning card. The player then would retrieve the paper card with that serial number and mark the corresponding spots on the paper card. Winning numbers would be verified and the player would submit the card for redemption. Your staff has explained that the computer would permit players to play more games at one time and would enable individuals with poor eyesight to play. We conclude that the Board may authorize the use and distribution of the "electronic computer aide," as specifically described above, to assist in the playing of bingo. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution bans all forms of gambling not expressly authorized in the Constitution itself. As originally enacted, the Constitution of 1894 banned all forms of gambling. Amendments have specifically authorized pari-mutuel betting on horse racing, bingo or similar games of chance to raise funds for eleemosynary and other specified purposes and the establishment of the State lottery. Article I, section 9(2) defines bingo as a game "in which prizes are awarded on the basis of designated numbers or symbols on a card conforming to numbers or symbols selected at random." This definition also appears in the statute that permits municipalities to authorize bingo within their territorial limits. General Municipal Law § 476(3). Your Board is empowered to administer the bingo licensing law, promulgate regulations governing the conduct of games and license distributors of "all cards, boards, sheets, pads and all other supplies, devices and equipment designed for use in the play of bingo. . . ." Executive Law § 435(1),(2). Your regulations reflect the constitutional and statutory definition of bingo as a game whereby letters and numbers on a card match letters and numbers selected at random. The regulations govern the time and manner of sale and price of bingo cards. 9 NYCRR §§ 5820.12 - 5820.14. They also require that the numbered objects or balls drawn from receptacles conform in size, shape and weight to insure that drawings will be random. Id.,
§ 5820.15. Additional regulations govern the drawing and verification of the numbers drawn. Id., § 5820.16 - 5820.22. In a prior opinion, we concluded that the laws governing bingo do not authorize an electronic bingo proposal. Op Atty Gen No. 85-F8. The proposal we reviewed was utilization of a computer terminal to replace traditional bingo cards. The terminal would display two bingo "cards." A central computer connected to the terminal would select numbers at random; if those numbers appeared on the cards displayed on a particular terminal they would be marked electronically. Play would continue until a winner was identified. We concluded that the definition of bingo as a game played on cards with numbered balls or other objects drawn from a receptacle at random, which the current Constitution, statutes and regulations still employ, did not contemplate a computerized game like the one described. We also found that amendment of the regulations to permit computerized bingo would not be authorized by governing law, which contemplates the use of traditional hand-held cards to play bingo. The Constitution continues to require the use of cards. The use of computers to assist bingo players in games that are conducted in the manner authorized under current law is distinguishable from the computer bingo proposal we reviewed in our prior opinion. Your proposal does not alter the game of bingo as defined in the Constitution and the governing statutes and regulations. Consistent with the current statute, regulations, and provisions of the Constitution, numbered objects or balls would be drawn randomly from a receptacle and cards would be marked and submitted as proof of "bingo." The computer, under your proposal, would be used only to assist players with poor eyesight and to facilitate playing of multiple games (consistent with any regulatory limits). A player could elect to play without a computer. We caution the Board that exceptions to the general prohibition on gambling are construed narrowly. See, Op Atty Gen No. 90-F5. Deviation from the proposal presented may be inconsistent with the Constitution or State law. Thus, the Board may authorize distribution and use of computers as proposed. Very truly yours,

ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General