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 that the Board had previously rejected (Op Atty Gen No. 85-F8). The 1985 proposal would have replaced paper cards with computer-displayed cards and used a central computer to select numbers at random; that proposal failed because the constitutional and statutory definitions require physical cards and random ball draws.

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?

Because the Constitution's bingo exception specifically references "a card." If the playing instrument is electronic, the game falls outside the exception and becomes prohibited gambling under the general ban. The card is a textual hook in the constitutional definition.

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

The 1999 device is a viewing aid for paper cards that the player already holds. A tablet-based bingo where the digital display IS the card crosses the line into electronic bingo, which the AG has consistently said is not authorized.

Could this rule have been overridden by Legislature?

The Legislature cannot, by ordinary statute, override the constitutional bingo definition. A constitutional amendment would be required to allow purely electronic bingo cards. Several attempts have surfaced over the years; none have passed at the time of the 1999 opinion.

What happens if a hall uses unauthorized electronic bingo?

The bingo license can be revoked. The operators can face criminal prosecution under the general gambling provisions. Funds collected become subject to seizure. The penalties are sharper for noncompliance than for many other regulatory frameworks because the underlying activity is constitutionally restricted.

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

Pull tabs and games of chance have their own constitutional and statutory framework. Each form of gambling permitted in New York operates under its own narrow exception, with its own definition and limitations. The 1999 bingo opinion does not generalize across all forms of charitable gaming.

Background and statutory framework

Article I, § 9 of the New York Constitution is the State's general gambling prohibition. The 1894 constitution banned all forms of gambling. Subsequent amendments have authorized specific exceptions: pari-mutuel horse race wagering (1939), bingo and similar games of chance for charitable purposes (1957), the State lottery (1966). Each exception is defined narrowly in the constitutional text.

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