What goes around, comes around" is an oft-heard saying in political circles -- meaning roughly that if you do unto others, something might be done to you.

A three-judge federal appeals court panel inserted new meaning into the phrase Monday when it delayed California's historic recall election directed at Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, repeatedly citing the highly controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision that propelled Republican George W. Bush into the White House.

Democrats denounced the court in 2000 when it ordered a halt to the recounting of disputed presidential ballots in Florida. They complained that a court primarily composed of Republican appointees had stolen the election from Democrat Al Gore.

Now Republicans are denouncing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, composed entirely of Democratic appointees, for calling a halt to the recall election scheduled for Oct. 7, alleging that it twisted facts to rationalize a voting shift to the March primary election.

"These are renegade liberal judges who time and time again seek to make their own law, rather than follow the law," said Rescue California, the pro-recall group. "We are confident that they will be overturned."

But will they? The liberal 9th Circuit, whose decrees are often overturned by a more conservative Supreme Court, appears to be laying a legal trap in its unanimous, 64-page dissertation. It seemingly takes glee in repeatedly citing the Supreme Court's Florida decision as precedent in ruling the Oct. 7 election could disenfranchise tens of thousands of California voters by using the punch-card voting machines that were so controversial in Florida. Delaying the recall election until March would allow the use of supposedly more reliable touch-screen voting machines.

As they overruled a lower court decision, the three judges said, "The Supreme Court's admonition in (the Bush case) bears re-quoting: 'The press of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees.' "

Whether its motivation is purely legal or tinged with ideology, the appeals court's declaration sets up another political showdown in the Supreme Court and creates vast angst among the recall's principal figures.

If the Supreme Court allows the recall to be shifted to March, would it help Davis, who has been running well behind in the polls, survive? The assumption inside both pro-and anti-recall camps has been that an October ballot would hurt Davis because it would occur with anger at him still raging and, as a special election, could be dominated by anti-Davis voters. That's why the recall forces put extra money into gathering signatures on recall petitions, seeking rapid certification, and that's why Davis' allies sought a delay in the courts.

If the recall vote were to be, indeed, delayed until March, it would give Davis more time to make his case that he's felt the anger over his gubernatorial performance and would do a better job if allowed to serve out his second term. But that assumes he is capable of convincing Californians about his contrition and/or that he won't do something else to alienate them.

A delay also would mean a vote just after Davis has unveiled a new proposed budget that must cope with a projected $8 billion deficit in the 2004-05 fiscal year -- in the wake of a 2003 budget imbroglio that drove Davis' public standing even lower. And the choices between spending and taxes are not going to be any easier.

Do movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, the leading candidates to succeed Davis should he be recalled, gain stature with five more months of campaigning, or do they diminish? And then there are the dynamics of the primary election. It's been assumed that with President Bush a shoo-in for renomination and a multicandidate contest for the Democratic nomination, the March primary would attract a bumper crop of anti-recall Democratic voters. But would pro-recall sentiment expand, perhaps in anger at the 9th Circuit?

These are questions, not answers. No one knows the answers now. As with so many other aspects of the recall drive, we are exploring political frontiers without a map.