Nor is the court persuaded by the Board’s argument that
there is a possibility of partisanship in the administration of
the interpreter program based on the discrepancy between the
number of oath affidavits collected by the Board and the
number of LEP voters the City defendants claim to have as-
sisted. This discrepancy does not reflect a flouting of the oath
requirements of Election Law § 8-306 (5). The interpreter
program training materials contemplate that the assistance
provided by the interpreters would include assistance that did
not involve entering into the voting area with the ballot. Fur-
ther, as noted in Mostofi’s supplemental affidavit, the interpret-
ers hired for the City defendants’ interpreter program were
instructed to keep track of all LEP voters with whom they
have contact. As such, the number of voters assisted by the
interpreters will necessarily be more than the number of
interpreters who entered the voting booth to assist a voter who
7. Although the Court of Appeals in Clark declined to decide what act, as
between the receipt of the registration form by the Board (Election Law §
5-210 [3]), or the review of the application by a bipartisan team of Board em-
ployees (Election Law § 5-210 [former (6) (a)]), finalized the registration, it
evidently viewed the receipt of the application by the Board as an important
step in the registration process and, thus, that the receipt of the application
in the locked boxes by the agencies essentially assumed a role in the registra-
tion process that had been expressly delegated to the Board by statute (Clark,
66 NY2d at 191-193). Here, in contrast, the Election Law contains no express
provision governing the provision of interpreter services by the Board, and