discrepancy reflects the possibility of partisanship in the
administration of the interpreter program. In arguing that the
City defendants’ interpreter program is barred by New York
Constitution, article II, § 8, and/or is preempted by the Elec-
tion Law, the court notes that the Board has otherwise provided
no evidentiary proof attacking the City defendants’ assertions
regarding the selection of languages and poll site locations, or
the training of the interpreters. It is in this factual context
that the court considers the applicable law.
NY Constitution, Article II, § 8
The Board first contends that the City defendants’ interpreter
program violates New York Constitution, article II, § 8, which
provides that
‘‘[a]ll laws creating, regulating or affecting boards
or officers charged with the duty of qualifying vot-
ers, or of distributing ballots to voters, or of receiv-
ing, recording or counting votes at elections, shall
secure equal representation of the two political par-
ties which, at the general election next preceding
that for which such boards or officers are to serve,
cast the highest and the next highest number of
votes. All such boards and officers shall be ap-
pointed or elected in such manner, and upon the
nomination of such representatives of said parties
respectively, as the legislature may direct. Existing
laws on this subject shall continue until the
legislature shall otherwise provide. This section
shall not apply to town, or village elections.’’
Although there is scant case law addressing the application of
this section, both sides rely on the Court of Appeals decision in
Clark v Cuomo (66 NY2d 185 [1985]), which addresses this
constitutional provision in a relevant context.
At issue in Clark v Cuomo was Governor Mario Cuomo’s Ex-