distributing ballots to voters, or . . . receiving, recording or
counting votes at elections’’ under NY Constitution, article II,
§ 8 (see Clark, 66 NY2d at 191; see also Matter of New York
State Senate Republican Campaign Comm. v Sugarman, 165
AD3d 1536, 1537-1538 [3d Dept 2018]).
Preemption
‘‘The preemption doctrine represents a fundamental limita-
tion on home rule powers’’ and ‘‘embodies ‘the untrammeled
primacy of the [l]egislature to act . . . with respect to matters
of State concern’ ’’ (Albany Area Bldrs. Assn. v Town of Guil-
derland, 74 NY2d 372, 377 [1989], quoting Wambat Realty
Corp. v State of New York, 41 NY2d 490, 497 [1977]). ‘‘A local
law will be preempted either where there is a direct conflict
with a state statute (conflict preemption) or where the
legislature has indicated its intent to occupy the particular
field (field preemption)’’ (Eric M. Berman, P.C. v City of New
York, 25 NY3d 684, 690 [2015]; see DJL Rest. Corp. v City of
New York, 96 NY2d 91, 95 [2001]).
Here, there is no conflict preemption as no provision of the
Election Law expressly governs the ability to provide inter-
preter services to voters.10 At oral argument, the Board specifi-
cally argued that Election Law § 8-306 preempts the City de-
fendants from providing the interpreter services. This court
disagrees and finds the plain language of section 8-306 cannot
be read as doing so.
As relevant here, section 8-306 (3) provides that
‘‘[a]ny voter who requires assistance to vote by rea-
son of blindness, disability or inability to read or
write may be given assistance by a person of the
voter’s choice, other than the voter’s employer or
10. The issue is only tangentially touched upon in Election Law § 3-412
(1-a), which mandates that inspector and poll worker training include instruc-