terpretation services, and that they are not to engage in elec-
tioneering or political discussions. Additionally, in the event
the interpreters enter the voting area to assist a voter, they
are instructed to sign an affidavit agreeing only to interpret
and not to influence the voter in anyway,4 to read the entire
ballot to the voter, and not to mark the ballot or write anything
down while they are in the voting area. The City defendants
also provide an affidavit from Samuel Solomon, an MOIA direc-
tor, who states that MOIA used census data to select the
language and the poll sites in a manner consistent with the
process used by the Board with respect to its interpreter
program. However, he further states that, with respect to the
November 2017 general election, budget considerations had an
impact on the number of languages provided, the interpreters
hired, and the poll sites covered.
4. This instruction is an apparent reference to the oath mandated by
Election Law § 8-306 (5) for persons, other than election inspectors, who
enter the voting booth to provide assistance to the voter.
BOARD OF ELECTIONS v MOSTOFI [65 Misc 3d 876] 881
The Board, in opposing the motion, and in support of its
cross motion, submits an affirmation from Steven Richman,
Esq., its general counsel, in which he describes the Board’s
own provision of language assistance to LEP voters as required
by the federal Voting Rights Act, court orders and consent
decrees. In addition, Richman states that, despite the City de-
fendants’ assertion that its interpreter program has assisted a
total of 2,850 voters over the three elections, there are only 248
affidavits showing that interpreters actually provided assis-
tance during the voting process. The Board asserts that this