SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court on Thursday turned down attempts to derail the ouster vote on Gov. Gray Davis, drawing praise from recall proponents and shifting the spotlight to the federal courts.

"I think (the state justices) used great wisdom and that the constitution is pretty clear about what the people want to happen in the state of California," said Ted Costa, chief organizer of the recall drive.

"We are moving forward with preparations for the Oct. 7 election," Secretary of State Kevin Shelley said after the judicial orders were issued late Thursday.
The justices were unanimous in ditching a suit filed by Davis as well as three other cases. In a fifth case, they voted 5-2 against the recall challengers.

Phil Paule, spokesman for Rescue California, the recall committee, said the rulings "should put an end to Davis' legal shenanigans."

But they did not clear the path of litigation.

Davis' own suit, contending minority voters would be disenfranchised by a slapdash election process, was based strictly on federal legal provisions and could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Robin Johansen, the governor's lead lawyer, said Davis' legal team was "just regrouping and trying to make a decision" about whether to seek the high court's intervention.

Additionally, discrimination suits pending in federal courts across the state, based on the U.S. Voting Rights Act of 1965 or the U.S. Constitution, were unaffected by the state court's decisions.

"The federal courts have always been the last bastion for protecting civil rights, and that may be the case today," said Robert Rubin, an attorney with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, which is sponsoring a challenge to the recall in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

The suits discarded by the state Supreme Court made many legal claims, but the court explained its reasoning on just two issues.

In disposing of arguments that only a lieutenant governor could succeed a recalled governor, the justices said that was a misreading of the California Constitution.

And a majority of justices said it would be improper for them to second-guess Shelley's decision to list on the ballot replacement candidates with as few as 65 signatures from supporters.

Dissenting on that issue, Chief Justice Ronald George and Justice Carlos Moreno said Shelley's possibly erroneous decision had invited "the chaos, confusion and circus-like atmosphere that have characterized the current recall process."

Federal courts had not yet scheduled action Thursday on most of the recall-related cases before them.

Rubin said he hoped for a hearing on a temporary restraining order within a week in the Lawyers' Committee case. The case asserts recall balloting must receive federal "preclearance" under the Voting Rights Act.

Other suits, aimed at delaying a vote on Proposition 54, an initiative to forbid the collection of racial data that's on the Oct. 7 ballot, are pending in federal court in San Jose and Sacramento Superior Court.

Lawyer Thomas Saenz of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said that organization will pursue both cases.

On Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union weighed in with a new federal suit. It's based on a legal victory the ACLU scored in federal court in Los Angeles last year, requiring the scrapping of decertified punch-card voting machines.

A federal judge declared "self-evident" in 2002 that "replacing voting systems that deprive individuals of the right to vote is clearly in the public interest."

Under a court-approved agreement, the punch-card machines in Sacramento and five other counties must be replaced before the 2004 primary election. The ACLU's new suit asserts that because the machines have caused problems in California in the past, particularly in areas that have high percentages of minority voters, no recall vote should occur until punch-cards are gone.

Peter Ragone, communications director for Davis' anti-recall campaign, expressed disappointment that the state court didn't resolve the question.

"We hope that voters will be able to overcome these impediments on their own," he said.

But Vikram Amar, a constitutional authority at Hastings College of the Law, said either the U.S. Supreme Court or the federal district court in Los Angeles could take on the issue.

The ACLU's suit might stand the better chance because federal district courts can more easily process "fact-intensive" claims than can the Supreme Court, he said.

On the other hand, Amar said, the Supreme Court's decision to halt the recount of punch-card votes in Florida during the last presidential election could be a factor. The high court might step into the California case to neutralize "criticism that Bush v. Gore (the Florida case that secured the 2000 victory of President Bush) was a partisan decision," he said.