SAN JOSE -- In action that could delay the Oct. 7 recall election, a federal judge Friday barred Monterey County from sending absentee ballots to overseas voters until changes in the county's voting procedures are approved by the U.S. government.

The temporary restraining orders directly affect only Monterey County, which along with Kings, Merced and Yuba counties is subject to the 1965 Voting Rights Act because of a history of discrimination against minority voters.

However, the orders potentially could result in a statewide postponement of the Oct. 7 recall election, according to the civil rights attorneys who filed suits arguing that voting changes planned by Monterey County must first be approved by the U.S. Department of Justice.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel issued two related rulings late Friday, scheduling the next hearing for Aug. 29. If the Justice Department has not "pre-cleared" the county's proposed changes by then, it is likely the election will be delayed, said Thomas Saenz, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

"It is not likely that the department can affect pre-clearance as quickly as the state thinks it can," Saenz said.

Requests for pre-clearance under Section V of the Voting Rights Act usually number in the hundreds of pages and take months to review, said Joaquin Avila, another MALDEF lawyer. He said the state's request, submitted on Aug. 4, was only two pages long, though federal officials have said they will expedite their assessment of it.

Robert Rubin of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, said, "Judge Fogel has recognized the important civil rights protections in the Voting Rights Act. ... The action, for the time being, moves to the Justice Department and whether they will find the changes to be discriminatory or not."

Doug Stone, a spokesman for Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, California's top election official, said Fogel's orders are under review, but he had no other comment.

But Hallye Jordan, a spokeswoman for state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, agreed with Rubin that the onus is now on the U.S. government to make a decision on pre-clearance by the next hearing in Fogel's courtroom.

"If California does not get pre-clearance by Aug. 29 from the Department of Justice, we'll be back in court and the judge will take the appropriate action," she said.

Civil rights lawyers got a bit less from Fogel than they had asked for in Friday's hearing.

They sought temporary restraining orders halting all of Monterey County's preparations for the recall election because the Justice Department had not pre-cleared the county's plans to severely reduce the number of polling places and to hire fewer bilingual poll workers.

"These defendants have sat on their legal obligations," Rubin told the judge.

Monterey officials say the changes are necessary because of truncated preparation time.

The plaintiffs also sought to delay voting on Proposition 54, an initiative focused on the collection of racial data by state agencies. State law requires qualified initiatives to appear on the "next statewide ballot" -- which would have been in March, 2004, had the Oct. 7 recall election not intervened.

They contended that the initiative should be barred from the October ballot because the state was forced to decrease the time allowed for public review and comment on proposed language for the ballot pamphlet. That change, as it affects Monterey County, also required Justice Department approval, they said.

But Leslie Lopez, a deputy state attorney general, told Fogel the state was under no obligation to seek pre-clearance until after Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante set the recall election for Oct. 7.

And Leroy Blankenship, assistant Monterey County counsel, said the county was reducing polling places by less than what state law allows.

"Any court has to be reluctant to stop the machinery (of elections) unless there's really no alternative," Fogel said during the hearing Friday morning.

But he issued orders prohibiting Monterey County from sending absentee ballots to overseas voters -- a step it was prepared to do within days -- unless and until the Justice Department pre-clears the voting changes.

That delay, Saenz said, could fatally damage preparations by Monterey and the three other counties subject to the Voting Rights Act's pre-clearance requirements.

Saenz reasoned that even if federal officials provide pre-clearance by Aug. 29, the time lost will mean the state won't be able to hold a statewide election Oct. 7.

The state has argued similarly in briefs filed with the court.

Rubin said the public comment process the Justice Department must undergo will take time.

Opponents of the recall said they would continue their preparations for an Oct. 7 election.

"It is imperative to preserve the voters' right to a fair and equitable election," said Peter Ragone, Communications Director for Californians Against The Costly Recall.

Meanwhile, another civil rights suit to delay the recall election was headed for a Monday hearing before a federal district judge in Los Angeles. That case focuses on the scenario that could unfold on Oct. 7.

Under a May 2002 judicial order, six California counties, including Sacramento, must scrap punch card voting machines before the March 2004 primary election. But the American Civil Liberties Union has gone back to the same judge, Stephen V. Wilson, to argue that using punch cards in October will disenfranchise thousands of minority voters.

On Friday, Shelley filed opposing arguments, saying he'll launch "unprecedented efforts to educate voters in punch card counties of the potential problems with these systems."

The punch card machines have never been declared unconstitutional, Shelley said.