Backing away from political controversy, Gov. Gray Davis decided Thursday that he won't ask taxpayers to cover his campaign costs if he wins the October recall election.

Davis had said Wednesday that he was undecided about whether to seek millions of dollars in reimbursement for his campaign costs, but he issued a statement Thursday saying he would not ask for repayment.

"The state's constitution allows my campaign to be reimbursed by the state when I defeat this," Davis said. "I have decided not to seek any reimbursements because I know that taxpayer money would be better spent on our kids' schools, health care and public safety."

The Democratic governor also repeated his criticism of the recall effort and the cost of the election, which he said could be as high as $60 million, and challenged his potential opponents to help defray the cost.

"Should they lose, I challenge them to pledge to reimburse the taxpayers an amount equal to the amount they spend on their campaigns," Davis said. "This will help the taxpayers defray the cost of this extraordinarily expensive recall election."

Republicans immediately dismissed Davis' remarks as an effort to distance himself from controversy over the issue of whether he would ask taxpayers to repay his campaign.

"This guy is the biggest joke we've ever had as governor," said Sal Russo, an adviser to potential Republican candidate Bill Simon. "Is he ever serious about being governor of this state?

"Clearly, nobody intends to reimburse all the contributors of the governor's campaign, so it's a preposterous argument in the first place. For him to stand up and act like he's taking credit for helping the taxpayers is outrageous."

A spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, a Republican from Vista who helped fund the recall effort and is a declared candidate to replace Davis, had a similar reaction.

"Gray Davis demanding fiscal responsibility? Now I've heard everything," said Jonathan Wilcox.

At issue is a section of the California Constitution that allows officeholders who win a recall challenge to seek reimbursement from taxpayers for costs "legally and personally incurred."

The amount and type of expenses that may be repaid have never been tested in court, experts say, although a state panel in 1996 rejected a claim for $889,000 in campaign costs from an assemblyman who had faced a recall challenge and won.

Some said Davis' statement Thursday was meaningless because they did not believe his campaign costs would have qualified as legal or personal costs.

"Our reading of the law and the constitution is that it says a person would be entitled to reimbursement of personal funds expended, and the money he's planning on raising seems to be coming from the special interests he's gone to year after year," said Chris Wysocki, a spokesman for Recall California. "So his promise not to seek reimbursement seems to be an admission that he's not entitled to it."

The political jockeying came as yet another legal challenge loomed to the recall -- one that seeks to delay the election for at least a month -- and as actor Arnold Schwarzenegger continued to debate whether to enter the race.

State NAACP President Alice Huffman said the organization will go to court by early next week to seek a delay of at least a month in the recall election.

She said the time is needed to educate voters about the recall process and about new polling locations, and to put in place reliable voting machines. Otherwise, she said, minority voters would be disenfranchised in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Her announcement followed reports that some counties with large minority populations -- including Los Angeles -- will be consolidating polls for the recall and using punch card machines that they're under a legal obligation to scrap.

Other counties with large minority populations that have announced plans to consolidate polls include Contra Costa and Alameda. Recall backers discounted suggestions of discrimination in the recall process, saying they had faith that the state and counties could conduct a fair election.

But Richard L. Hasen, an elections law specialist at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said claims like those suggested by the NAACP have "the greatest potential to succeed" in delaying or derailing the election among all the issues raised in recall-related lawsuits that have surfaced so far.

Hasen cited a federal court ruling in Illinois that declared punch card balloting to be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Huffman said minorities would be affected disproportionately because it's harder to get them to understand the process and turn out to vote.

Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Federation of Labor, who joined Huffman at a news conference, said, "The backers of this attempt are deliberately trying to disenfranchise minority voters.

"Voters may show up at their usual polling place, a church basement, and find a bingo game under way."

Many counties have said they'll consolidate polling places for the recall vote because they're having trouble finding available locations or they want to save money on an election with an anticipated light turnout.

In settling a federal lawsuit after the 2000 Florida recount debacle, in which hanging chads determined the outcome of the presidential race, several California counties agreed to get rid of punch card voting systems. But some of them now say the new systems won't be ready in October.

Other counties could be forced to resort to paper ballots because a long list of candidates could exceed the capacity of some sophisticated new voting systems.

Huffman said the rush to vote in October also could skew the results of an initiative on the same ballot, a measure sponsored by affirmative action opponent Ward Connerly that would bar government collection of racial data.

"We stand a good chance of defeating both of these things (the recall and the initiative) if we just had another month or so to prepare for the election," she said.

State Democratic Chairman Art Torres said later that the party supports the NAACP effort and might file its own lawsuit either before or after the election.

Torres said the party has found "severe problems," including confusion about polling places and with arranging transportation of seniors and disabled voters on short notice to polling places that might be 10 or 20 miles away from their homes.

Because of access issues, he said, "This election may very well be invalidated."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe joined Torres in a conference call with reporters to warn that the national party also is on the alert for legal problems.

In Sacramento County, Sally Pujol, precinct operations manager, said punch card ballot machines will be used because "it's all we have." She said about 100 of the county's 800 polling places will be eliminated.

"The voters have to read the back of their sample ballot for their polling place," she said. "It is very important they do that."

A punch card system will be used in Yolo County, said clerk and recorder Freddie Oakley, and about 30 polling places will be eliminated, mostly in Woodland, Davis and West Sacramento.

Placer County has a high-tech voting system in place. County officials haven't decided how many polling places will be used.

El Dorado County has what voter registrar Michele MacIntyre described as a "chadless" punch card system. No consolidation of polling places is planned there.