interpreter program thus far. Moreover, the mere specter of
8. Election Law § 8-306 (3) provides that
‘‘[a]ny voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blind-
ness, disability or inability to read or write may be given assis-
tance by a person of the voter’s choice, other than the voter’s
employer or agent of the employer or officer or agent of the
voter’s union. A voter entitled to assistance in voting who does
not select a particular person may be assisted by two election
inspectors not of the same political faith. The inspectors or
person assisting a voter shall enter the voting machine or booth
with the voter, help the voter in the preparation of the voter’s
ballot and, if necessary, in the return of the voted ballot to the
inspectors for deposit in the ballot box. The inspectors shall
enter in the space provided for such voter in the computer gener-
ated registration list, the name of each officer or person render-
ing such assistance.’’
9. The court notes that, while the use of the written affidavit by the
Board may be an appropriate means of administering the oath required by
Election Law § 8-306 (5), nothing in the language of that section requires
that the oath be made in writing.
BOARD OF ELECTIONS v MOSTOFI [65 Misc 3d 876] 887
partisanship in the administration of the program, in and of
itself, does not render the program an unconstitutional intru-
sion into the Board’s functions.
As such, even if the interpreter program could be deemed to
constitute a law for purposes of NY Constitution, article II, § 8,
the decision in Clark supports a finding that the interpreter
program does not regulate the Board or intrude into the Board’s
authority or the Board’s functions of ‘‘registering voters, . . .