6. Election Law § 8-306 (5) provides that
‘‘[a] person other than an inspector, who assists a voter in vot-
ing, shall make an oath before entering the booth that he ‘will
not in any manner request, or seek to persuade or induce the
voter to vote any particular ticket or for any particular
candidate, and that he will not keep or make any memorandum
or entry of anything occurring within the booth, and that he will
not, directly or indirectly, reveal to any person the name of any
candidate voted for by the voter, or which ticket he had voted, or
anything occurring within the voting booth, except when
required pursuant to law to give testimony as to such a matter
in a judicial proceeding.’ ’’
BOARD OF ELECTIONS v MOSTOFI [65 Misc 3d 876] 885
tance provided in filling out, the voter registration forms at is-
sue in Clark, which the Court of Appeals found did not
constitute the registration of voters. Contrary to the Clark
Court’s finding that the provision of receptacles effectively
rendered the agency a ‘‘branch office’’ of the Board, nothing in
the interpreter program involves a similar intrusion into the
Board’s statutory mandate with respect to the ballots.7
Having asserted that a voter’s ability to understand the bal-
lot is fundamental to the ability to cast his or her vote, the
Board fails to explain how the elimination of the interpreter
program would not, in effect, disenfranchise voters. Rather
than violating the Election Law, the program is consistent with
the Election Law’s policy of encouraging the broadest possible
voter participation (Election Law § 3-102 [14]; Clark, 66 NY2d
at 190). The Court, in Clark, held that the effectuation of this
policy is not limited solely to the State and County Boards of
Election (Clark, 66 NY2d at 190).