The Ninth Circuit Count of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the California recall election will be held Oct. 7 as originally planned. The decision by 11 members of the court reverses a Sept. 15 ruling by a three-member panel that would have postponed the election until March. That decision was based on inequities the judges said would occur in six counties that would be using the punch-card voting system. The three judges said this discrepancy would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The 11-member panel disagreed, paving the way for the continuation of the recall election.

The case was originally filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, alleging that punch-card systems in some counties would cause inaccuracies, potentially denying some individuals the right to have their vote counted. A spokesman for the ACLU said this afternoon that the group would not pursue an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although the field of 135 candidates is crowded, only a handful are considered viable candidates for the state's top post should the recall action succeed. Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante (D) has positioned himself as the best choice should Davis fail to keep the governor's seat. Top Republican candidates are Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Sen. Tom McClintock. Other candidates, however, might affect the outcome by siphoning votes from the leading candidates.

The court's earlier decision to move the election to March had no effect on campaign activities. Candidates continued to move forward, spend money and make dozens of appearances throughout the state. Although the governor's popularity has remained low, surveys on the outcome of the election vary on a day-to-day basis. Recently, Davis has nearly drawn even with recall proponents.

California voters will be asked to vote yes or no on the recall and then may select a candidate for governor. Davis is not an option in the field of candidates if the recall succeeds. The October election also contains two ballot measures. Proposition 54 would prohibit government agencies, including schools and health agencies, from collecting racial data. Proposition 53 is a constitutional amendment that would require the state to set aside funds for infrastructure spending.