ecutive Order No. 43, a 1984 order that led to the establish-
882 65 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, 3d SERIES
ment of a program in which state agencies would make voter
registration forms available to members of the public and,
through their staffs, provide assistance in filling out the forms
(Clark, 66 NY2d at 187). Under the program as implemented,
the persons filling out the forms could then leave them in a
receptacle for transmittal to or pick up by the local Board of
Elections, or mail the forms directly to the Board of Elections
(id.). The Court of Appeals found that Executive Order No. 43
did not violate NY Constitution, article II, § 8, stating,
‘‘[a]lthough the program and Task Force created by
Executive Order No. 43 clearly do not afford such
bipartisan representation, that requirement is
inapplicable because Executive Order No. 43 is not
a law and because the personnel who implement it
do not register voters, distribute ballots or receive,
record or count votes at elections’’ (id. at 191).
The Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff ’s argument that the
program registered voters by stating, ‘‘We hold, at least when
implemented in conjunction with the injunction against provid-
ing locked receptacles, and thus constituting only a means of
distributing and assisting in the completion of voter registra-
tion forms, that it does not’’ (id.). The Court went on to state:
‘‘It matters not whether registration is complete at
the time the application form, if timely mailed, is
received by the local Board of Elections, as plaintiff
claims (Election Law § 5-210 [3]), or, as defendants
contend, after the application has been reviewed by
a bipartisan team of Board employees (Election
Law § 5-210 [6] [a]). The mere distribution of
registration forms and rendition of assistance in