the City defendants’ program here contains no provision relating to the ballot
that is comparable to the provision of the locked boxes at issue in Clark.
886 65 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, 3d SERIES
are thereby subject to the provisions of Election Law § 8-306
(3)8 and required to swear to the oath required by Election Law
§ 8-306 (5).9 Given that it is the election inspector’s duty to
regulate entry into the voting area and obtain the oaths from
persons rendering assistance to the voters in the voting area
(see Election Law §§ 3-402 [3]; 8-202 [2]; 8-300 [1]; 8-302 [3]
[d]; 8-306 [3]), the possible failure of a certain number of
interpreters to provide oath affidavits, absent evidence of
subterfuge on the part of the interpreters (which evidence is
not before the court), demonstrates more a failure of the inspec-
tors in carrying out their duties than a deficiency with the
interpreter program. Accordingly, the discrepancy between the
number of voters assisted by the voter program and the number
of oath affidavits fails to show improper training of the
interpreters, let alone that the interpreter program has been
operated in a partisan manner or that it invades any core
Board function with respect to the ballots.
The Board also argues that the possible specter of partisan-
ship arises from the inconsistent provision of interpreter ser-
vices at different elections arising from the availability of fund-
ing for the program. While there is undoubtedly a danger that
funding for the program could be manipulated so that the
interpreter services, or lack thereof, would favor certain par-
ties or groups at different elections, the Board has submitted
no proof that such improper allocation of interpreter services
has occurred in the elections covered by City defendants’