into the Board’s authority or the Board’s functions of ‘‘qualify-
ing voters, . . . distributing ballots to voters, or . . . receiving,
recording or counting votes at elections.’’ Additionally, many
broad provisions contained in the Election Law governing the
conduct of elections require uniform statewide application and
would preclude municipalities from passing inconsistent laws
or regulations (see Castine v Zurlo, 46 Misc 3d 995, 1001 [Sup
Ct, Clinton County 2014]). Nevertheless, the provision of
interpreter services, while undoubtedly central to the ability of
LEP voters to vote, is only tangentially related to the Election
Law provisions that govern the conduct of elections (Election
Law, art 8, tit 3) and the Board’s core Election Law functions
of registering voters, distributing ballots to voters, and receiv-
ing, recording or counting votes at elections (see DJL Rest.
Corp., 96 NY2d at 97; Matter of Arash Real Estate & Mgt. Co.,
148 AD3d at 1139). Further, while there are municipalities in
other parts of the state that have LEP voters who would bene-
fit from having interpreters, given the sheer number of LEP
voters in the City who need language assistance (see e.g. NY
City Charter § 18 [a]; Matter of Toribio, 24 Misc 3d 1024, 1026-
1028 [Sur Ct, NY County 2009]), the scope of the need for
interpreter services is unique to the City, and supports this lo-
cal initiative to address the issue.
As noted above, the provision of interpreter services is also
consonant with the core policy of the Election Law of encourag-
ing the broadest possible voter participation (Election Law §
3-102 [14]; Clark, 66 NY2d at 190), and, in Clark, the Court of
Appeals emphasized that the effectuation of this policy is not
890 65 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, 3d SERIES