limited solely to the State and County Boards of Election.12
Indeed, while the decision in Clark did not address preemption
arguments, its holding that the executive department voter
registration drive was not barred by constitutional separation
of powers concerns or the requirements of NY Constitution,
article II, § 8 supports a finding that field preemption does not
bar the interpreter program here (see Clark, 66 NY2d at 190-
193). Such a conclusion is also supported by the Appellate Divi-
sion, First Department’s holding in McDonald v New York City
Campaign Fin. Bd. (117 AD3d 540 [1st Dept 2014]) that Elec-
tion Law provisions governing campaign finance did not
preempt the field and preclude enforcement of City campaign
finance provisions that were not inconsistent with the require-
ments of the Election Law (id. at 541). Accordingly, this court
concludes that the City defendants’ interpreter program is not
preempted by the Election Law.
The court notes that the Board, in the amended complaint,
alleges that the City defendants’ interpreter program is also
preempted by the federal Voting Rights Act. The Board,
however, has not raised this Voting Rights Act argument in
support of its own cross motion or in opposing the City defend-
ants’ motion, and has thus arguably waived its claim of
preemption based on the federal Voting Rights Act. In any
event, nothing in the Voting Rights Act, which contains provi-
sions barring discrimination based on a voter being a language
minority and provisions setting minimum requirements for
providing election material in the language of certain language
minorities, demonstrates an intent to bar or preempt the City
defendants’ program to provide assistance for additional lan-
guages (see Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 USC §§ 10303 [f];