completing them does not approach either critical
event and thus does not implicate the constitutional
requirement of bipartisan representation. Although
a ‘but for’ analysis arguably would require a con-
trary result, because the critical stage could not be
reached unless someone supplied the forms and
helped registrants fill them out where necessary,
such an interpretation would, as a practical matter,
preclude all private voter registration drives and
thus be completely contrary to the expressed
legislative policy of encouraging as widespread
voter registration as possible’’ (id. at 191-192
[footnotes omitted]).
The Court of Appeals, however, affirmed an injunction bar-
ring the registration program from providing receptacles for
BOARD OF ELECTIONS v MOSTOFI [65 Misc 3d 876] 883
the completed registration forms at various agency offices that
was imposed by the Appellate Division (Clark, 66 NY2d at 192-
193). The Court found that this portion of the program ‘‘too
closely approaches the critical stage of delivery to the local
Board of Elections, thus rendering the agency, for all intents
and purposes, a ‘branch office’ of the Board’’ (id. at 192). The
Court reasoned that
‘‘[t]he potential for mischief when the key to the
box, and the transportation of its contents to Board
offices, are the responsibility of agency personnel,
is obvious. Less obvious, but in our view also
infused with both the perception of and potential
for abuse, is the presence of the locked receptacles
even in other circumstances. We believe that any
impact on the program of requiring registrants to
mail in their completed forms is outweighed by the
elimination of the potential for abuse when such
forms are in the custody of the Postal Service. Ac-
cordingly, we conclude that so much of the injunc-