Home >

December 23, 2016
For More Information, contact:
Luther Strange
Mike Lewis (334) 353-2199
Alabama Attorney General
Joy Patterson (334) 242-7491
Page 1 of 2

State of Alabama Wins Appeal to Destroy Seized Greenetrack Bingo Machines
(MONTGOMERY) – For the second time this year, the Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that
electronic bingo is illegal within the state of Alabama, Attorney General Luther Strange
announced today.
In the case State of Alabama v. 825 Electronic Gambling Devices et al (Greenetrack), the Alabama
Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State, reversing a lower court judgment siding with the
casino. As a result, the State of Alabama is allowed to destroy the electronic bingo machines it
seized from Greenetrack.
In its 29-page ruling released Friday, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its March 31, 2016 ruling in
a similar case involving the legality of electronic bingo machines.
“There is no longer any room for uncertainty, nor justification for continuing dispute, as to the
meaning of [the term ‘bingo’]. And certainly the need for any further expenditure of judicial
resources, including the resources of this Court, to examine this issue is at an end. All that is
left is for the law of this State to be enforced,” the Supreme Court said.
In a separate case (Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., d/b/a Victoryland v Marie Hoffman), the
Supreme Court ruled that individuals have a right to sue illegal gambling institutions.
“Because the ‘contracts’ containing the arbitration provisions in these cases were based on
gambling consideration, they were based solely on criminal conduct, and are therefore void.
Consequently, the provisions of those ‘contracts,’ including arbitration provisions are void and
unenforceable,” the Supreme Court ruled.
Attorney General Strange emphasized that these rulings, combined with the Supreme Court’s
March 31, 2016 ruling against Victoryland, remove any doubt that electronic bingo in all its
forms is illegal in Alabama and that local law enforcement should do their duty to enforce the
“Local sheriffs and police officers in most parts of the State are enforcing our gambling laws.
The sheriffs in Greene and Macon counties must uphold their sworn duty to enforce the law as
interpreted by the Supreme Court and not continue to sanction this illegal activity. As I have
501 Washington Avenue * Montgomery, AL 36104 * (334) 242-7300
www.ago.alabama.gov Page 2 of 2

previously stated, my office stands ready to render any required assistance to enable them to
carry out their legal duties.”
Attorney General Strange commended Assistant Attorney General John Kachelman of the
Criminal Trials Division, as well as agents in his Investigations Division and all law
enforcement officers who assisted with the Greenetrack case, including former agents Mike
Reese and William Carson for their dedicated work.
Greenetrack ruling is attached
REL: 12/23/2016
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
OCTOBER TERM, 2016-2017


State of Alabama
825 Electronic Gambling Devices et al.
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court
The State of Alabama appeals the Greene Circuit Court’s
judgment denying its petition for forfeiture of certain
electronic-gambling devices and records of Greenetrack, Inc.,
naming as respondents 825 Electronic Gambling Devices,1151024
Greenetrack, Inc., Bally Gaming, Inc., Cadillac Jack, Inc.,
and International Game Technology, Inc. (“IGT”). We reverse
the judgment and render a judgment in favor of the State.
Facts and Procedural History
On November 4, 2003, the voters of Greene County ratified
Amendment No. 743 (now Local Amendments, Greene County, ß 1
(Off. Recomp.)), which provides, in pertinent part, that
“[b]ingo games for prizes or money may be operated by a
nonprofit organization in Greene County.” After the adoption
of Amendment No. 743, Greenetrack installed electronic-gaming
devices at its facility in Greene County, also known as
In December 2008, Governor Bob Riley issued Executive
Order No. 44, which created the Governor’s Task Force on
Illegal Gambling. Agents of the task force conducted an
undercover investigation at Greenetrack to determine whether
the machines at Greenetrack were illegal gambling devices.
The investigation led the task-force agents to believe that
the machines constituted slot machines, which are illegal in
Alabama, see ß 13A-12-27 and ß 13A-12-20(10), Ala. Code 1975.
Beginning on July 1, 2010, law-enforcement agents removed from
Greenetrack 825 gaming machines, the servers to which the
machines were attached, and assorted paper and electronic
records of gaming activity, including various documents,
computers, and manuals related to the operations of
Greenetrack. On August 4, 2010, the State filed an amended
petition for civil forfeiture seeking forfeiture of the seized
items. On April 11 and 12, 2016, the circuit court conducted
a bench trial.
At trial, witnesses for the State presented testimony
about the investigation and the seizure of the gaming
machines, which were manufactured by Bally, Cadillac Jack, and
IGT; the servers; and the records. Lieutenant Mike Reese, a
former employee of the Alabama Alcohol Beverage Control Board
who worked on the task force, testified with regard to the
play of the gaming devices seized from Greenetrack. The
record provides:
“[Assistant attorney general]: Lt. Reese, with
respect to the play of this game, you came up to the
machine and you indicated that there [were] certain
buttons and other areas on that machine.
“What did you have to do as a player to play
this 24 Caret Gold machine?
“[Lt. Reese]: You had to put either cash — cash
bills or a voucher into a slot. And it would take
it into the machine, it would pull it in, and then
it would credit on the screen how much money you put
in or depending on whatever you had on the voucher.
And the voucher could say $3.40. You slide it in,
and it would credit the play for $3.40. And then
you would have to start the machine itself.
“[Assistant attorney general]: ….
“Whenever you inserted that into the machine,
either the money or the voucher, what did you have
to do next to initiate playing on the machine?
“[Lt. Reese]: You had to start the actual play of
the machine by hitting a button. It could be ‘daub’
or ‘play.’ It would say sometimes ‘play daub’ on
the same button. You’d have to hit it. And then
when you did that, the machine would start
“[Assistant attorney general]: Now, during the
course of playing this game, did you have to take
any action while playing the game in any way, form,
or fashion?
“[Lt. Reese]: Well, you didn’t have to. Once you
started it, if you didn’t want to, you didn’t have
to do anything else. But to actually win, you would
have to daub it several times.
“What the screen showed in the video, it would
tell you and say, ‘Daub now.’ So you would hit the
button again. And then after you hit it, it would
then stop, the reels would stop on the lower — what
we call the player’s plexy. That was where the rails
were. It would stop.
“[Assistant attorney general]: Now, at any time,
did you have any kind of control or ability to
change the game or interact inside that game while
it was running?
“[Lt. Reese]: No, you did not.
“[Assistant attorney general]: Was it a game of
“[Lt. Reese]: Absolutely.
“[Assistant attorney general]: Any actions that you
took, did it determine any kind of outcome of the
“[Lt. Reese]: As I said, the only thing you could
do is to begin play. And then once you began play,
it was solely up to the machine itself whether you
won or lost.
“THE COURT: Now, one last question.
“If you were distracted and not looking at that
machine when it said ‘daub,’ you could sleep your
“[Lt. Reese]: Yes, you could.
“[Assistant attorney general]: But with respect to
these games, I just wanted to differentiate, if I
could, any distinctive differences between these
games. So if you could tell the Court anything that
played differently, that’s fine. But if they all
played substantially the same, that’s fine too. …
“[Lt. Reese]: Yes, sir. They all — they played
the same. You had to start the machine by hitting
a button, even the one that you had to hit one time.
But you had to start with the action of hitting the
button and then they would elicit something of value
if you won. Ant it would exert — not cash, but
they would exert vouchers that you would then have
to either play on the machines or go cash out. So,
characteristically, yes, they all played the same.
“[Lt. Reese]: Every machine that I observed at
Greenetrack all had bingo cards on them. Every one
of them. They all played the same. And the people
that I watched, including other agents, had to
insert cash or vouchers into the machines, vouchers
having value on it, and then they played the same
way. …
“[Assistant attorney general]: Were you required to
look at that 5-by-5 grid in any way to mark it or
signify that a number had been called?
“[Lt. Reese]: No, sir, I did not.
“[Assistant attorney general]: Did you hear anyone
calling out numbers or values related to the play of
the games whenever you were playing these machines?
“[Lt. Reese]: No, I did not.
“[Assistant attorney general]: How quickly did the
numbers appear on the screen?
“[Lt. Reese]: Instantaneously. And by
‘instantaneously,’ as soon as you hit the machine,
the ball would drop. Second daub, you could do it
like (indicating) and the game would be over in a
matter of three seconds.
“[Assistant attorney general]: Were you able to
respond in any way whenever the numbers appeared
there on the game screen?
“[Lt. Reese]: No, sir, you were not.
“[Assistant attorney general]: Did the machines
give you any time to react to one number in any way
before the next one was drawn?
“[Lt. Reese]: Well, they were instantaneous. The
first three fell at the same time, and then the
second batch fell, and it could be 15 to 30 balls
instantaneous. You couldn’t mark it one by one.
They all fell at the same time.
“[Assistant attorney general]: Were you required to
know what kind of pattern you were looking for in
playing this game on this machine?
“[Lt. Reese]: You were not.
“[Assistant attorney general]: Were there any
players, or did you ever announce bingo?
“[Lt. Reese]: No, sir, I did not.
“[Assistant attorney general]: Did you hear anyone
else whenever you were playing the games in the
facility announce that they had bingoed?
“[Lt. Reese]: Never.
“[Assistant attorney general]: … In playing the
game, was there any way to try and signify that you
had a bingo, like you had a game-winning pattern
when, in fact, you did not?
“[Lt. Reese]: No sir.”
On cross-examination, Lt. Reese stated that the bingo balls
displayed on the machines were video representations, that the
balls were drawn and would fall electronically, and that the
claiming of the prizes was done electronically. Lt. Reese
also stated that if the machine being played did not win the
game, the machine would identify numerically the machine that
won the game. He explained that when a person initiated a
machine and there were not enough machines engaged to play,
the machine would post a message stating “waiting for other
players.” Lt. Reese further explained that, although the
machines of the other players playing the game were identified
on a player’s machine, a player could not determine who else
was involved in the game. Lt. Reese testified that he
believed the machines seized at Greenetrack were slot
Greenetrack presented testimony from Richard LaBrocca,
Senior Director of Engineering at Gaming Laboratories
International (“GLI”). The circuit court certified him as an
expert to testify “as to the generally accepted practices,
methodologies and protocols for forensic software analysis,
compliance testing and classification of electronic games and
amusement devices.” The following excerpt from LaBrocca’s
testimony explains the evolution of what he refers to as
“electronic marking devices”:
[Greenetrack’s counsel]: Now, when did [cards] give
way, so to speak, to the development of electronic
games* When did that occur?
“[LaBrocca]: … [A]ctually starting late ’80s,
’90s, you started seeing electronic marking devices
making their way into the field. Those devices
basically replaced the paper product with a reusable
product. That also assisted the players in
completing certain aspects of the game.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: And when you use the term
‘electronic marking device’ how did they first
appear in the ’80s and ’90s, as you described?
“[LaBrocca]: They first appeared as simple portable
devices that a player could check out at a bingo
hall. Those devices were then given to a player,
and they would be not much more than a screen and
several buttons that allowed them to view the packet
they bought. And the packet would basically be all
of the bingo cards for a session of bingo.
“The device itself would bring to the forefront
certain elements of the game at a given point in
time and allow the player to advance through that
game, aiding him in marking the cards relevant to
that particular ball draw.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: … [I]s this what we’ve
been referring to as a bingo-minder?
“[LaBrocca]: Yes.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: Now, when did bingo-
minders evolve into what I call player stations or
upright electronic marking devices?
“[LaBrocca]: There were really two different types
of upright marking devices. The first was the
portable devices went [sic] to tabletop or desktop
versions of them, which is beneficial to facilities
that did not move around. Obviously, the portables
allowed them to be transitioned from facility to
facility, site to site. But there was a risk of
losing them, breaking them, dropping them, damaging
them, et cetera.
“So for a site that had fixed facilities, they
would go to a tabletop version, which was nothing
more than the same type as the portable, it was just
permanently mounted to a table. That then evolved
into what you see today as fully stand-alone,
upright physical devices that are, you know, five
foot tall and include their own bottom. They’re not
necessarily mounted to a table, but have a seat in
front of the device itself.”
He explained that each of the stand-alone machines identified
with a unique number of other machines playing the same game.
He further explained that the early electronic-marking
machines did not require a player to pay attention to the
numbers as they were drawn because the player-aid aspect
alerted a player that some sort of action would be beneficial
to his or her game. LaBrocca testified that a player could
“sleep” a bingo using an electronic-marking machine because a
player had to recognize that his or her card had a matching
pattern and take some physical action to claim the game.
According to LaBrocca, the “entertaining display,” i.e.,
spinning reels displayed on the machines, had no impact on the
outcome of the game. He explained that, even though the
machines had a spinning-reels display, each machine also had
a representation of a bingo card, the button presses, and the
caller board. LaBrocca testified that, at the request of
the sheriff of Greene County, GLI tested the machines being
played at Greenetrack, determined that they complied with
Amendment No. 743, and issued letters of approval for the
manufacturers — Bally, Cadillac Jack, and IGT. The record
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: Mr. LaBrocca, on the
games that GLI examined and certified in this case,
did each of the games have a device number that was
available to the player?
“[LaBrocca]: Yes.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: And where was that
available to the player?
“[LaBrocca]: Usually directly on the screen or
otherwise printed and affixed to the front or
visible surface of the machine.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: And is that number
different from the bingo game number you talked
about earlier?
“[LaBrocca]: Yes.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: Now, what is the
significance of the unique device number that was
available to the player?
“[LaBrocca]: The device number is unique to the
physical asset, so this particular terminal —
unique identifier name, if you will, the bingo game
is unique to the instance of play.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: On these games, could a
player change his bingo card if he didn’t like the
card he was displayed?
“[LaBrocca]: Yes. Before staking a wager, you
would be able to tap the bingo card and it would
cycle through whatever bingo cards were available.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: And on these games, are
the winning bingo patterns also available to the
“[LaBrocca]: They are.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: And how are they displayed
to the player?
“[LaBrocca]: Depending on the software in question,
you would either hit the ‘help’ button or the ‘pays’
button, and you would be able to cycle through all
available patterns.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: And would the help screen
display to the player the winning pattern and the
amount of any potential award for matching a
particular pattern?
“[LaBrocca]: Yes, it would.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: And would that be true
for the IGT games, the Cadillac Jack games, and the
Bally games?
“[LaBrocca]: Yes.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: So did GLI verify in its
testing and certification in this case that the
games offered in the IGT, Cadillac Jack, and Bally
games played a common game?
“[LaBrocca]: Correct. If you were enrolled in a
game, you both collectively received the same ball
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: Did GLI verify for the
Bally games, the IGT games and the Cadillac Jack
games that the balls were drawn in random fashion?
“[LaBrocca]: Yes.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: Did GLI also determine
whether or not the balls were drawn one by one for
the Bally, IGT, [and] Cadillac Jack games?
“[LaBrocca]: Yes. We did.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: And what did you
“[LaBrocca]: They were drawn one by one and each
selection was random and unpredictable.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: And finally, Mr.
LaBrocca, did GLI also determine that the balls that
were displayed to the players on the IGT, Cadillac
Jack, and Bally games were displayed to the player
one by one?
“[LaBrocca]: Yes.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: And what did you
“[LaBrocca]: They were.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: Did GLI also determine
whether the bingo games it tested from IGT, Cadillac
Jack, and Bally were communal or competitive games
requiring more than one player to play?
“[LaBrocca]: Yes. All three vendors had
configurable settings, starting at a minimum of two
for the number of players that would be joined into
a game.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: … Are there differences
between slot machines and bingo games, sir?
“[LaBrocca]: Yes.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: Can you describe those
for the Court?
“[LaBrocca]: We’ve discussed bingo games fairly
significantly throughout the last two days. Slot
machines, when you’re playing a slot machine, you as
the player are playing against a mathematical
algorithm singularly, not collectively, against that
game. There is no — with people playing that game,
there’s no common ball draw at all. There’s no ball
draw at all. Instead, what you’re faced with is a
wager on a random chance that certain symbols,
combinations, cards are going to yield a given
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: Would it be fair to say
that in a slot machine, you’re playing against the
house, and in a bingo game, you’re playing against
other players?
“[LaBrocca]: That’s true.
“[Greenetrack’s counsel]: Mr. LaBrocca, just one
more question. In your experience, what are the
essential characteristics of the game commonly known
as bingo?
“[LaBrocca]: So I believe it distills down to a
group of players competing to be the first to match
a predesignated pattern that is selected by a ball
On cross-examination, LaBrocca testified that the
electronic machines allowed a player to increase his or her
bets or stakes on a single game of bingo while the game was
being played. LaBrocca admitted that the only way to increase
a bet when playing in games where the numbers are called one
by one and a player physically marks his or her card is by
purchasing multiple cards for the same game. He explained
that, when a person is playing the electronic games at issue,
the wagering is normalized by the system. LaBrocca stated
that, although a player is playing in a group when using an
electronic device, the value a player may wager on a given
card may differ among the players of the game. LaBrocca
further testified that, depending upon the machine being
played, the amount awarded as the game-ending prize could be
a percentage of the total money wagered, and the consolation
prizes or interim prizes would not be derived necessarily from
the total value of the wager across multiple machines but
from house money.
LaBrocca admitted that the players using the electronic
devices do not have any kind of meaningful interaction with
other players of the game. LaBrocca further testified that a
player could, without knowing the pattern needed to win the
game, press the button three times to play the game, that
there was no way for a player to mark each ball drop
individually on the screen, that a player could not mismark an
alphanumeric or similar designation of the screen, that the
machine, not a person, announced the win, and that a player
did not have to shout “bingo” to win the game.
Standard of Review
“When a judge tries a case without a jury, we
apply the following standard of review:
“‘”[W]hen a trial court hears ore
tenus testimony, its findings on disputed
facts are presumed correct and its judgment
based on those findings will not be
reversed unless the judgment is palpably
erroneous or manifestly unjust.” Philpot v.
State, 843 So. 2d 122, 125 (Ala. 2002).
“‘The presumption of correctness, however,
is rebuttable and may be overcome where
there is insufficient evidence presented to
the trial court to sustain its judgment.'”
Waltman v. Rowell, 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086
(Ala. 2005)(quoting Dennis v. Dobbs, 474
So. 2d 77, 79 (Ala. 1985)). “Additionally,
the ore tenus rule does not extend to cloak
with a presumption of correctness a trial
judge’s conclusions of law or the incorrect
application of law to the facts.” Id.’
“Fadalla v. Fadalla, 929 So. 2d 429, 433 (Ala.
State v. $223,405.86, [Ms. 1141044, March 31, 2016] _ So. 3d , (Ala. 2016).
The State contends that the circuit court erred in
holding that the elements of “bingo” — as set forth in Barber
v. Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., 42 So. 3d 65 (Ala.
2009), and elaborated upon in Houston County Economic
Development Authority v. State, 168 So. 3d 4 (Ala.
2014)(“HEDA”), to which we hereinafter refer as “the
Cornerstone-HEDA elements” — do not apply to the game played
pursuant to Amendment No. 743. The appellees contend that
because Amendment No. 743 provides definitions for the game of
“bingo” and the equipment used to play the game, Amendment No.
743 authorizes electronic-bingo games, and the Cornerstone-
HEDA elements do not apply.
Amendment No. 743 authorizes the operation of bingo games
by nonprofit organizations in Greene County. Amendment No.
743 defines the game of “bingo” as follows:
“That specific kind of game commonly known as bingo
in which prizes are awarded on the basis of
designated numbers or symbols on a card or
electronic marking machine conforming to numbers or
symbols selected at random.”
Amendment No. 743 also defines the “equipment” used in the
game, stating:
“The receptacle and numbered objects drawn from it,
the master board upon which such objects are placed
as drawn, the cards or sheets bearing numbers or
other designations to be covered and the objects
used to cover them or electronic card marking
machines, and the board or signs, however operated,
used to announce or display the numbers or
designations as they are drawn.”
Because bingo is a form of lottery prohibited by Ala.
Const. 1901, Art. IV, ß 65, Amendment No. 743 is an exception
to the general prohibition in ß 65 and, therefore, must be
narrowly construed. HEDA, 168 So. 3d at 9; Cornerstone. In
addition to this fundamental principle of “narrow
construction,” we also recognized in Cornerstone the need,
“‘except where the language of a constitutional provision
requires otherwise,'” to “‘look to the plain and commonly
understood meaning of the terms used in [the constitutional]
provision to discern its meaning.'” State v. $223,405.86,
So. 3d at __ (quoting Cornerstone, 42 So. 3d at 79).
Amendment No. 743 itself defines “bingo” as “[t]hat
specific kind of game commonly known as bingo.” In
Cornerstone, HEDA, and other similar cases over the past seven
years, this Court has held that the unadorned term “bingo”
means simply “the game commonly or traditionally known as
bingo.” 42 So. 3d at 86. In Cornerstone, we explained that
this game includes the following characteristics:
“1. Each player uses one or more cards with
spaces arranged in five columns and five rows, with
an alphanumeric or similar designation assigned to
each space.
“2. Alphanumeric or similar designations are
randomly drawn and announced one by one.
“3. In order to play, each player must pay
attention to the values announced; if one of the
values matches a value on one or more of the
player’s cards, the player must physically act by
marking his or her card accordingly.
“4. A player can fail to pay proper attention
or to properly mark his or her card, and thereby
miss an opportunity to be declared a winner.
“5. A player must recognize that his or her
card has a ‘bingo,’ i.e., a predetermined pattern of
matching values, and in turn announce to the other
players and the announcer that this is the case
before any other player does so.
“6. The game of bingo contemplates a group
activity in which multiple players compete against
each other to be the first to properly mark a card
with the predetermined winning pattern and announce
that fact.”
42 So. 3d at 86.
In State v. Greenetrack, Inc., 154 So. 3d 940, 959-60
(Ala. 2014), this Court considered “the game commonly known as
bingo” and the Cornerstone characteristics in light of the
definition of bingo provided in Amendment No. 743, stating:
“Amendment No. 743, just like the amendment at
issue in [Barber v.] Cornerstone [Community
Outreach, Inc., 42 So. 3d 65 (Ala. 2009),] and bingo
amendments applicable to other counties, speaks of
and permits the playing of ‘bingo games’ (provided
that a number of other restrictions, including
charitable purposes, are met). We identified in
Cornerstone and we reaffirm today that the game of
‘bingo’ as that term is used in local constitutional
amendments throughout the State is that game
‘commonly or traditionally known as bingo,’ 42 So.
3d at 86, and that this game is characterized by at
least the six elements we identified in Cornerstone.
“There is, however, at least one notable
difference between Amendment No. 743 and the
comparable amendments in most other counties – –
namely the fact that the ‘card’ required for the
playing of bingo may be ‘an electronic marking
machine.’ …
“In Cornerstone, we explained that, among other
things, the game commonly or traditionally known as
bingo involved ‘each player’ utilizing a ‘card’ with
a certain pattern and universe of alphanumeric or
other designations and that each player must respond
to the random drawings of these designations by an
‘announcer’ by manually marking this card. 42 So. 3d
at 86. Clearly, the ‘bingo’ at issue in this case
does not employ a ‘card’ in the sense of a flat
rectangular or square object made of paper,
cardboard, or some similar material on which the
required designations are printed. … [T]he
provisions for ‘electronic marking machines’ in
Amendment No. 743 … allow bingo to be played in
Greene County without the necessity of such a card.

“The question, however, is whether the ability
to employ an ‘electronic marking machine’ obviates
all the other criteria of bingo this Court has
recognized. Clearly, it does not. By way of
explanation, we reiterate and affirm our discussion
of Amendment No. 743 in Cornerstone itself:
“‘In contrast to the use of merely the
term “bingo games,” … Amendment No. 743
… legalizes in Greene County a form of
bingo that would include an “electronic
marking machine” in lieu of a paper card.
Even [Amendment No. 743], which is the only
amendment in Alabama we have located that
makes any reference to the use of
electronic equipment of any form,
contemplates a game in all material
respects similar to the game of bingo
described in ß 45-8-150(1), [Ala. Code
1975,] …. Amendment No. 743 begins by
saying that “bingo” is “[t]hat specific
kind of game commonly known as bingo.” The
definition then explains that bingo is a
game “in which prizes are awarded on the
basis of designated numbers or symbols on
a card or electronic marking machine
conforming to numbers or symbols selected
at random.”