Passage of the Ward Connerly ballot initiative to restrict the collection of race-related data likely would require court and legislative action to clear up ambiguities, according to a legislative analysis released Monday.

The analysis is meant to provide an objective, nonpartisan look at a measure that has sparked wildly different interpretations by supporters and critics.

"For some current government activities, the effect of the measure is unknown and would depend on future interpretation of the measure's language by courts and future actions by the Legislature," the Legislative Analyst's Office concluded.

Passage of Proposition 54 on Oct. 7 would not result in significant financial impact on state or local government, said the analysis, which will appear in the state ballot pamphlet mailed to voters.

The measure would ban state government from classifying people by race, ethnicity, color or national origin, except for medical research or to meet court decrees and federal requirements.

Proposition 54 applies specifically to race-related data in public education, contracting and hiring. It also would affect other state operations unless exempted by the governor and a two-thirds majority of the Legislature.

The initiative is being pushed by Connerly, a Sacramento businessman who led the successful 1996 campaign for Proposition 209, which banned racial preferences in state hiring, education and contracting.

Proposition 54 clearly would bar some racial statistics and permit others. But certain data do not fit squarely into either category, leaving judges or legislators to clarify whether it could be collected and how it could be used by state and local agencies, the analyst concluded.

Several examples were cited, including:

* Peace officers could continue to describe crime suspects by race, but it is unclear whether such data could be combined to analyze crime trends by race.

* The federal census could continue to gather racial information, but the extent to which state and local governments could use such data is unknown.

* State and local agencies apparently could continue to collect race-related health statistics through public surveys, the Legislative Analyst's Office said, but its analysts did not say whether the measure's "medical research" exemption would cover all or only some of the data currently collected.

Opponents claim that Proposition 54 would bar race-related data used to identify trends and design outreach programs. Birth and death certificates would be affected, as would the cancer registry, and hospital and laboratory reports, they contend.

Jay Ziegler, co-director of the anti-Proposition 54 campaign, said the analyst left major questions unanswered. Virtually every health-care expert in the state believes the measure "undermines tools necessary for solid health-care prevention," he said.

But Diane Schachterle, Connerly's campaign coordinator, said Proposition 54 is not meant to interfere with any health-related issue. The analysis supports that view, she said.

"Although it's not definitive, their best analysis is that, for all intents and purposes, medical data collection will continue," she said.

Statistics that could continue to be compiled if Proposition 54 passes include the racial composition of government job applicants and employees, and of students in public schools and colleges, the Legislative Analyst's Office said. The measure also would exempt data on individuals who receive food stamps or cash assistance, or who use public drug, alcohol or mental health services, the report said.

Statistics barred by Prohibition 54 relate to companies doing business with the state, failed applicants to the University of California and California State University, people taking state teacher credentialing exams, college students in the state's loan forgiveness program, teenagers in some UC outreach programs, and public school students taking various state education programs and tests.

Statistics of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which investigates discrimination complaints, would be exempt for 10 years.