SAN FRANCISCO - The Justice Department on Monday cleared the Oct. 7 election to recall Gov. Gray Davis.

The decision, expected to be forwarded to California officials as early as today, comes three days after a federal judge threatened to halt the election if the government did not approve it.

Under the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, any changes in the voting process must be pre-cleared by the Justice Department in places, such as Monterey County, that have a history of low voter participation.

"This is not a problem," Jorge Martinez, a Justice Department spokesman, said late Monday.

Neither Attorney General Bill Lockyer nor Secretary of State Kevin Shelley had received any word from the Justice Department, spokeswomen for the offices said Monday night.

While other legal challenges to the recall are pending, the Justice Department's decision apparently removes one obstacle from the election's path.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel on Friday in San Jose threatened to postpone balloting if elections officials had not received the department's approval by Aug. 29. He also temporarily barred Monterey County from mailing ballots to overseas voters until the issue was resolved.

The 1965 law was intended to prevent the various means that had been used in the South to disenfranchise black voters, such as changes in polling stations or other requirements imposed on voters just before election day.

Monterey County, with its large Latino population and history of low voter turnout, is one of four California counties subject to the "pre-clearance requirement" under the Voting Rights Act. The others are Merced, Kings and Yuba counties.

The election, just 49 days away, is forcing some counties to make moneysaving changes that until Monday lacked federal approval. The legal dispute focused on Monterey County, which plans to cut costs by reducing its usual 190 polling places to 86 and hiring fewer Spanish-speaking poll workers.

However, the Justice Department has not signed off on whether voters will decide Proposition 54 on the Oct. 7 ballot. That measure would ban state, federal and local governments from keeping track of the races of their employees, contractors and students.

The Justice Department is still contemplating whether a vote on the measure now would disenfranchise minority voters, Martinez said.

There are other unresolved legal challenges to the recall.

In one the American Civil Liberties Union is seeking to postpone the election until March, because on Oct. 7 some counties plan to use obsolete, punch-card voting machines that the civil rights group says will disenfranchise minorities.

In a Monday hearing in Los Angeles U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson, noting the significance of the challenge to the unprecedented election, said he would rule within days.

"It seems to me that when issues of this seriousness are raised, they deserve a response," he said, indicating he will not simply issue a decision without comment. "I'm going to try and discipline myself to put together an order by Wednesday."

Doug Woods of the state attorney general's office, representing the secretary of state, argued in the hearing that the ACLU was speculating what may happen Oct. 7 as far as error rates or other problems with the punch-card machines.

He said that speculation does not outweigh public interest in having the election go forward.

In a second pending case, Bay Area attorney Scott Rafferty seeks to reverse a San Diego federal judge's decision ordering elections officials to count votes for gubernatorial replacement candidates cast by people who abstained from voting for or against the recall.

The recall ballot will pose two questions: whether to recall Davis and who should replace him if he is ousted. Recall law ordinarily requires elections officials not to count votes on the second question cast by those who abstained on the first.