The California Supreme Court today rejected legal efforts to postpone or scuttle the recall election of Gov. Gray Davis, now scheduled for Oct. 7.

The state's highest court unanimously rejected four of the five cases before it, including the legal challenge by Davis. The governor had argued that the structure of the recall and the punch-card voting system used in Los Angeles and other counties would disproportionately hurt minority voters.

The justices also approved by a 5-2 vote the nomination process that requires candidates to gather only between 65 to 100 signatures and pay a $3,500 fee to be placed on the ballot.

San Leandro attorney Robin B. Johansen, who represented Davis in the suit, said she was "very disappointed" by the court's denial of her petition. She said she will have to consult with Davis and her other clients before deciding whether to appeal.

"We don't know yet if we are going to go any further with this," Johansen said. "The U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review this decision."

In their dissent on the fifth item, Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Justice Carlos Moreno concluded that there are substantial questions concerning the legality of the recall procedure selected by the secretary of state. They would have ordered the secretary of state to halt election preparations until the issues could be resolved by the court.

The cases, filed by Davis and private individuals, raised three broad legal arguments: that a quick election would disenfranchise some voters, particularly Davis supporters; that the method for choosing a successor to Davis was flawed; and that the rules for candidate qualifications were too loose.

Davis had contended that an Oct. 7 special election would disenfranchise some voters, especially his supporters in places like Los Angeles County, and poor and minority voters in general. That, his petition said, would run afoul of equal protection guarantees.

In addition, the Davis petition argued that the old punch-card voting machines that were at the center of the Florida miscount in 2000 would still be used in Los Angeles and seven other counties and that a plan by several urban counties to consolidate precincts would disproportionately hurt minority voters.

Both problems would be fixed by delaying the recall until the statewide election in March, Davis' attorneys said. By then, punch-card voting machines will have been scrapped in favor of more accurate machines throughout the state and no precincts would have to be consolidated.

The legal basis for Davis' claim is the U.S. Supreme Court decision that sealed Republican George W. Bush's victory in the presidential election in 2000. The high court ruled against a possible recount of Florida votes, in part on the grounds that the equal protection guarantee in the Constitution prohibited different procedures in different counties.

A final set of issues involves the rules established by Secretary of State Kevin Shelley for candidates to get on the ballot. The rules require major party candidates to pay $3,500 and submit 65 to 100 signatures to qualify or collect more signatures and pay a smaller fee.

The low threshold has been blamed for a plethora of candidates, although it is unclear how many of the hundreds who have expressed interest will run.

The recall election faces two federal lawsuits, including one filed today by the ACLU in Los Angeles, according to Associated Press. The ACLU argued that six California counties with a high percentage of minority voters, including Los Angeles, would have to use old, unreliable punch card machines in October.