10503).13
In conclusion, based on the record before the court, the City
defendants have demonstrated, prima facie, that the program
is constitutional and that it is not preempted. As the Board has
failed to demonstrate the existence of factual issues warrant-
12. The court notes that at the time of the decision in Clark, Election
Law § 3-102 (14) was numbered section 3-102 (13).
13. As conceded by the Board, even if the City defendants’ interpreter
program could be deemed to constitute a change in voting procedures suf-
ficient to implicate the preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act
(52 USC § 10304), the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Shelby
County v Holder (570 US 529 [2013]) effectively precludes application of the
preclearance requirements to block a change in voting procedures (see Voketz
v Decatur, Ala. City of, 904 F3d 902, 907-910 [11th Cir 2018]).
BOARD OF ELECTIONS v MOSTOFI [65 Misc 3d 876] 891
ing denial of the City’s motion, and likewise failed to demon-
strate its own prima facie entitlement to summary judgment in
its favor, the City defendants’ motion is granted to the extent
indicated and the Board’s cross motion is denied. The court
emphasizes that its determination of the motion and cross mo-
tion are based on the evidentiary record before the court. The
court acknowledges the possibility of partisanship and potential
for abuse in the administration of the interpreter program.
However, to address such concerns, the Board’s inspectors
certainly retain authority to take appropriate action in the
event that the interpreters provided through the program
engage in electioneering or other improper conduct.
Finally, because the Board sought a declaration of its rights,
entry of a declaratory judgment in favor of the City defendants