SAN FRANCISCO -- Halting the Oct. 7 recall election would negate the votes of nearly 400,000 Californians and waste millions of dollars already spent, state and local elections officials told the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday.

California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, joined by county registrars of voters in Los Angeles and Sacramento, urged the court to reconsider a decision by a three-judge panel that would put the election off until March.

They said about 2 million absentee ballots had been mailed statewide, 375,000 of them had been returned and as much as $50 million in special election costs incurred.

"The panel's incorrect decision has thrown the election into uncertainty and threatens to negate the votes of 375,000 voters who have already cast absentee ballots," Deputy Attorney General Douglas Woods wrote on Shelley's behalf. "Enjoining an election at this time -- prior to any determination on the merits ... is directly contrary to the public interest."

Their pleas to let the election go forward as scheduled were among a batch of briefs from both sides filed with the court two days after it delayed voting until punch-card voting machines are phased out in Sacramento, Los Angeles and four other counties.

The court ruled Monday that punch cards are so error-prone that voters suffer unconstitutional discrimination in the counties that use them.

The newly filed briefs respond to one urgent question posed by the full 9th Circuit the next day: Should an 11-judge panel take a fresh look at the case before the circuit signs off? Until the question is resolved, the original decision, made by three judges, is stayed.

Two dozen active members of the court will determine by a 13-vote majority whether to convene a larger panel that would include the circuit's chief judge, Mary Schroeder of Phoenix, and 10 other circuit members to be chosen at random.

The timing for all parts of the procedure depends on the court's wishes and the logistics of circulating briefs and recording votes of judges scattered from Montana to Hawaii. Court Clerk Cathy Catterson said she expected no decision on whether to convene the enlarged panel until Friday at the earliest.

Jill LaVine, Sacramento County registrar, wrote that the county has already spent $1 million and mailed 142,922 absentee ballots that would be useless after Oct. 7.

LaVine in her brief expressed confidence in the reliability of Sacramento County's PollStar punch-card machines, which she said have produced a relatively low 1.7 percent rate of invalid ballots since 1980.

"The court ruling canceling the Oct. 7, 2003, statewide special election has already resulted in more voter confusion and antipathy than would ever potentially occur as a result of the continued use of the punch-card voting system at issue," she said.

Conny McCormack, her Los Angeles County counterpart, filed a similar argument. The numbers were bigger, however -- 332,900 absentee ballots mailed, $7 million spent.

Both registrars said combining the recall with the regularly scheduled primary election on March 2 would require them to employ two separate voting systems because of the high number of recall candidates -- 135 -- and the long list of other races on the March ballot.

Shelley's brief also argued that the state has taken many measures to reduce the risks of punch-card voting, including public service announcements, Web site announcements and voting materials published in multiple languages.

Recall proponent Ted Costa in his brief told the judges the voting technologies used by 54 California counties are no more accurate than punch cards. And, he said, the interim systems that will be used in Sacramento and Los Angeles counties for the March presidential primary will be worse than punch cards.

Most of the briefs supported convening an 11-judge circuit panel. Costa's lawyers said the panel should come together promptly, apparently mindful of the immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court that's bound to follow the 9th Circuit's resolution.

But the American Civil Liberties Union's brief and some others disagreed.

An 11-judge circuit review would merely slow the case, said the ACLU, which represents a civil rights coalition that won Monday's three-judge ruling. The ACLU sought to delay the scheduled Oct. 7 election because, it said, error-prone punch-card voting machines would be used in six counties -- including Sacramento and Los Angeles -- that together account for 44 percent of the state's registered voters.

The ACLU's brief said 25 states already have abolished punch cards; 10 others, including California, will do so in 2004; and an additional 13 will be rid of them by 2006.

The three-judge panel's decision, moreover, would not set a dangerous precedent as others have argued because it was designed as "a model of caution" and made on "narrow legal grounds and discrete factual circumstances that are very unlikely to recur," ACLU lawyers wrote.

In addition, the ACLU also argued that an 11-judge hearing by the 9th Circuit would delay ultimate resolution, because the matter will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and "timely considered review in both courts would be extremely difficult to achieve."

It is far from clear, however, whether the U.S. Supreme Court would agree to take the case, meaning the 9th Circuit's decision could well be the final word.

Briefs filed with the 9th Circuit
* Secretary of State Kevin Shelley and county registrars in Los Angeles and Sacramento: Argued that 375,000 absentee ballots already returned and as much as $50 million in special election costs would be wasted.

* Recall proponent Ted Costa: Said voting technologies used by 54 California counties are no more accurate than punch cards.

* The American Civil Liberties Union: Said the punch card system is error-prone and has already been abolished in 25 states, while 23 others are in the process of getting rid of them.