Efforts to recall Gov. Gray Davis got a big boost Friday after courts in Northern and Southern California made rulings seen as strongly increasing the likelihood of a fall election.

Recall backers were ecstatic, predicting the election could be certified as early as next week and then set for a date between Sept. 30 and Oct. 14.

"I expect filing for office will open in a couple weeks," said David Gilliard of Rescue California, the recall group that gathered the bulk of the signatures. "We'll know who the candidates are, and we're going to have a full-fledged election for governor."
Gilliard's group is financed largely by Rep. Darrell Issa, a conservative Republican from Vista who so far is the only GOP candidate who has said he'll run if a recall election is held.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled first Friday, declaring that California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley gave county election officials "erroneous" instructions last month when he said they could wait 30 days before validating signatures on recall petitions.

Shelley spokesman Doug Stone said Shelley still expects his view of state recall law to be upheld when the appellate court holds a hearing on the matter July 31.

By that time, though, recall backers believe they'll have enough signatures verified and the election will be set.

Had Democrat Shelley's interpretation stood, according to Sal Russo, the Republican political operative whose recall group filed the suit, an election might not have been held until spring.

Davis forces believe that if the election can be delayed until March, when the state's presidential primary is held, the Democratic governor would fare better because more Democrats would turn out to vote.

Pro-recall activists want a quick count so the election can be held this fall, when the turnout presumably would be smaller and favor Republicans.

Recall supporters, who say they have turned in 1.6 million signatures, need to have at least 897,158 deemed valid to qualify for the ballot. If that happens no later than Sept. 3, an election could be held this year. After that date, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante could opt to consolidate the recall election with the March primary.

In signature counts released late Friday, Shelley's office said counties had reported counting 575,926 signatures. But the validation process is going much more slowly: Only 33,504 had been certified as valid.

Stone said the number of validated signatures was "likely to increase dramatically next week" when counties are required to issue new tallies.

"The threat of litigation has speeded the counting up. No question about it," Russo said. "At the pace the counties had been going, I thought it would have been a close call."

Later Friday in Los Angeles, Superior Court Judge Carl J. West denied a request from Davis' supporters for a temporary restraining order to prevent certification of the recall petitions before an Aug. 8 hearing on their lawsuit.

He also shot down many of the arguments they've made in their lawsuit seeking to throw out hundreds of recall petitions.

"If you don't grant a temporary restraining order ... the train will have left the station," attorney Paul Kiesel argued for the anti-recall forces.

Charles Bell, attorney for recall proponents, argued that "the train left the station when nearly 1.7 million people signed these petitions."

Kiesel filed the lawsuit on behalf of Taxpayers against the Governor's Recall, a committee established by Davis' former staffers.

The group, which claims out-of-state circulators fraudulently obtained signatures, is seeking to have hundreds of recall petitions thrown out.

The judge said he ruled against the temporary restraining order because the secretary of state is not required by law to certify the election before the Aug. 8 hearing on the lawsuit filed by Davis' allies.

"We will have a full-blown hearing," he said. "I don't see the urgency of this, and I am not going to grant this request."

West said the anti-recall forces "failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim" that hundreds of recall petitions should be tossed out.

California law requires recall petition circulators to be registered to vote. Anti-recall attorneys claim the out-of-state circulators violated state law by failing to register to vote in California or by lying about their residency to register here.

If they did break the law, the judge said, the legal "remedy" is to prosecute the circulators rather than throw out the petitions.

West also said he believes a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court ruling makes it unconstitutional for the state to require petition circulators to be registered to vote. In that case, the high court struck down a Colorado law that required initiative petition circulators to be registered voters.

Kiesel, the lawyer for the anti-recall forces, argued Friday that the 1999 ruling applied to initiative petitions -- not to recall petitions.

He also said he would appeal, if he loses again at the Aug. 8 hearing, on the merits of his case.