Proposition 54, the initiative that would ban the collection of race-related data by the state, will remain on the Oct. 7 recall election ballot despite claims that voters won't have enough time to debate the controversial issue, a Sacramento Superior Court judge ruled Thursday.

"There are some public policy arguments, but they don't rise to the level to negate the constitutional mandate," said Judge Lloyd G. Connelly.

The judge ruled that after the proposition qualified as a ballot measure on July 15, 2002, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley was required by law to place it on the ballot of the next general election, which is Oct. 7, when voters will decide whether to recall Gov. Gray Davis.

Lawyers for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund attempted to convince the judge that the recall was not a general election.

"It is not the same thing," said Thomas A. Saenz, who claimed the proposition should be placed on the March 2 primary ballot with other measures.

Deputy Attorney General Geoffrey Graybill, who represented Shelley's office, said the measures should get on the ballot quickly so that these issues "do not get stale."

Proposition 54 would ban state government from classifying people by race, ethnicity, color or national origin, except for medical research or to comply with court decrees and federal mandates.

A Field Poll released last month showed that 50 percent of likely voters support the measure and 29 percent oppose it -- but three of four respondents had not read arguments for or against it.

Political consultants have said more time could help opponents of Proposition 54 raise funds and advertise in an attempt to change voters' minds.

Justin Jones, a leader in the Yes on 54 campaign, said the group has no preference as to election date.

MALDEF's Saenz said voters need the additional time for a robust debate of the measure, because it is so "complicated and misleading."

The initiative is being pushed by Ward Connerly, a Sacramento businessman and University of California regent. He maintains that society will never be colorblind so long as government collects, dissects, analyzes and fights over racial statistics.

Critics denounce the measure as a devastating blow to civil rights that would perpetuate discrimination by eliminating data to monitor progress toward equal opportunity for all races.

Some of those critics, chanting slogans and carrying handwritten signs, came out Thursday to protest outside Connerly's midtown Sacramento consulting firm.

The peaceful, half-hour demonstration attracted about 60 members of the UC Student Association, which was in town for a conference at the University of California, Davis.

"I don't buy the argument that this is a move toward a colorblind society," said Stephen Klass, 22, of UC San Diego. "I think (both sides) are trying to fight for the same goal, but we have different ideas of the way to get there."

One student, Ben Murray, 26, of UC Irvine, held a sign supporting Proposition 54. "I think the proposition is a step in the right direction," he said. "It just seems like, eventually, we want to get to a place where affirmative action isn't necessary anymore."

Suits seeking to postpone the balloting on Proposition 54 as well as the recall vote on Gov. Gray Davis are still awaiting their first airing in the federal courts.

A hearing is set today in U.S. District Court in San Jose on a pair of requests for temporary restraining orders to halt election preparations until requirements of the federal Voting Rights Act are met.

Under the 1965 statute, the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal district judge in Washington, D.C., must sign off on changes in voting procedures in four California counties -- Monterey, Merced, Kings and Yuba -- with histories of voting discrimination and low voter turnout.

In papers opposing the restraining orders that were filed late Thursday, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the Justice Department's approval was expected "well before" the election.

John Mott-Smith, the chief of California's Elections Division, sent a request, dated Aug. 4, for clearance to hold an election on a day other than those specified in the state Elections Code. He asserted that procedures for the election would follow long-standing state law.

Lawyers for MALDEF and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights argue that plans by some of the counties to consolidate polling places, reduce the number of multilingual poll workers and take other efficiency steps also require a federal sign-off.

Lockyer also said in his written arguments that temporary restraining orders would be inappropriate because any delay in the preparations would "irrevocably cause the postponement of the election" everywhere in California, whether or not clearance arrived from Washington.