SAN JOSE — An appeals court Friday denied Judge Aaron Persky’s request to immediately block recall proponents from collecting the signatures necessary to put his ouster on the June ballot.

Without commenting on the case, the Sixth District Court of Appeal rejected Persky’s request to stop the recall petition drive.

“The petition for writ of mandate or other appropriate relief and the request for stay are denied,” the ruling by Justices Franklin D. Elia, Eugene M. Premo and Adrienne M. Grover merely concluded.

But the court will still hear Persky’s appeal next year, though it is unclear when.

The campaign has until Jan. 16 to gather 58,634 signatures to qualify for the June election. Stanford law professor Michele Dauber, who is leading the recall, said volunteers and paid workers have already collected 76,000 signatures and expect to have no problem reaching the 90,000-signature goal.

But the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters has until early March to certify the signatures, and the election isn’t until June 5.

“It’s not unusual for an appellate court to deny an emergency stay,” said retired judge and former San Jose independent police auditor LaDoris Cordell, who has endorsed Persky. “It doesn’t mean this is over. We’ll see what happens.”

The petition drive had been halted in August for 12 days by retired Orange County Judge Marjorie Laird, who granted Persky’s request for a temporary restraining order. However, retired San Francisco Judge Kay Tsenin later lifted the restraining order — just four days before it would have been too late for them to put the measure on the June ballot.

Persky had contended in his request for a stay that a lower court judge who allowed the recall signature-gathering effort to proceed in August “committed legal error.”

But his argument was problematic enough to prompt state Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office to side with recall supporters. The attorney general’s stance had nothing to do with supporting or opposing the recall itself, merely with the legal arguments over the jurisdiction of such recall races.

Persky’s lawyers contend that Superior Court judges like Persky are state officers, so California’s secretary of state, not the county registrar, should be overseeing the petition drive.

If Persky prevails, recall proponents will be forced to refile their petitions with the state — which would delay the recall until November and significantly increase election costs by more than $5 million dollars.

However, in the pending appeal, Persky dropped the argument that if he lost the recall, the governor should fill the vacancy — not voters. So, the question of who would replace the judge will appear on the same ballot as the recall. So far, only one person — assistant district attorney Cindy Hendrickson — has announced her candidacy.

On Friday, Dauber said the campaign was “extremely pleased.” “Our message is simple: Sexual assault is a serious crime and elected officials such as Judge Persky who fail to recognize this will be held accountable by the voters,” Dauber said.

Persky became a recall target after giving a six-month sentence in June 2016 to former Stanford athlete Brock Turner, who sexually assaulted an unconscious, intoxicated woman outside a campus fraternity party. Under California law, Turner must also register for life as a sex offender.

Recall opponents note that Persky’s sentence for Turner was lawful and followed a probation department recommendation, and they argue that a recall would threaten judicial independence.

Persky is constrained by strict state rules from criticizing opponents in an election. However, in a statement that appears on the recall petition approved by county officials, the Superior Court judge — without referring specifically to Turner’s sentencing — said California law requires him to consider rehabilitation and probation for first-time offenders.

“As a judge, my role is to consider both sides,” Persky is quoted as saying. “It’s not always popular, but it’s the law and I took an oath to follow it without regard to public opinion or my opinions as a former prosecutor.”