tion intended to assist voters with disabilities or limited or no English
language ability.
888 65 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, 3d SERIES
agent of the employer or officer or agent of the
voter’s union. A voter entitled to assistance in vot-
ing who does not select a particular person may be
assisted by two election inspectors not of the same
political faith.’’
[2] The first sentence of section 8-306 (3), which was added
in 1991 (see L 1991, ch 154),11 incorporates, word for word, the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 USC § 10508 (also referred to as
section 208 of the Voting Rights Act), a 1982 addition to the
Voting Rights Act. While the language of 52 USC § 10508 does
not specifically mention interpreters, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that a Texas statute
that required that an interpreter selected by a voter to provide
assistance be a registered voter of the county in which the
voter needing assistance resided impermissibly narrowed the
rights guaranteed by 52 USC § 10508 (OCA-Greater Houston v
Texas, 867 F3d at 614-615). In view of the origin of language
allowing a voter to choose the person to assist him or her, and
the plain meaning of this text, nothing in section 8-306 (3) can
be read as limiting the provision of interpreter assistance solely
to the Board’s inspectors or to interpreters hired by the Board.
Nor does the fact that City defendants make interpreters avail-
able through their program thwart or otherwise prevent a voter
from seeking assistance from a ‘‘person of the voter’s choice’’ for
purposes of section 8-306 (3).
With respect to field preemption, the legislature may indicate
its intent to occupy a field expressly or by implication (see DJL
Rest. Corp., 96 NY2d at 95). ‘‘An implied intent to preempt