Ward Connerly and the president of the NAACP's Sacramento branch butted heads Wednesday over the effects of a ballot initiative billed as a step toward creating a colorblind government.

The brief but heated exchange occurred at the end of a luncheon meeting of the Sacramento Press Club at which Connerly, head of the Proposition 54 campaign, was guest speaker and local NAACP President David De Luz was a spectator.

The confrontation followed a wide-ranging, 45-minute speech in which Connerly hailed Proposition 54 as a much-needed step toward eliminating government obsession with racial checkboxes that he contends often are unnecessary and divisive.

"I believe we're one human family, coming from different parts of the globe, different shades, different cultural experiences -- but beneath it all, we're one human family," said Connerly, who led the successful 1996 campaign to ban racial preferences in public education, contracting and employment.

"The more we try to divide ourselves into different racial groups, I think that we accentuate the problems of this state," he said.

Proposition 54 would ban state government from classifying people by race, ethnicity, color or national origin, except for medical research or to meet court decrees, federal requirements or several other purposes.

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

Connerly blasted critics who claim Proposition 54's exemption for medical research is too narrow. The measure is crafted not to hurt health-care programs in any way, he said, and critics are intentionally exaggerating the effects because "the only way (they) can win is to scare people and make them think their health is at risk."

Connerly and De Luz tangled after others in the Clarion Hotel crowd pressed the Proposition 54 leader on whether restricting race-based data would hamper efforts to document and fight discrimination.

"I think there's a trade-off here, and I'd be the first to say that this probably makes it a little more difficult," Connerly said. "You have one less tool to deal with. Does that offset the possibility of our moving toward a colorblind government? For me, I'd take the trade-off. I'd like to get rid of race. I'd like to get it out of our lives. That's my trade-off."

Connerly said race-based data doesn't prove discrimination by itself and that in no sector of government, or life, is there always a perfect statistical balance between the racial composition of the general population and those involved in specific programs.

"I think it's important to set a public policy, and once you set the public policy, people begin to adapt to that," Connerly said. "That's how it's worked with civil rights all along."

Connerly said he does not believe that racial discrimination is rampant in public education, employment and contracting. Passage of Proposition 54 on Oct. 7 would not prevent anyone from gathering information and pressing a discrimination case, he said.

"If I have someone who I think is discriminating against me, I'm not impotent to deal with that," he said. "I can gather data if I want to. My attorney can gather that data. The judge can require the one being sued to bring in some information."

At that point, De Luz interrupted.

"I can't believe what I'm hearing out of your mouth," De Luz said. "You're sitting here basically placing the burden on the victim or the person being discriminated against. ..."

Connerly cut him off, asking for other questions from the crowd.

Minutes later, the luncheon of Sacramento-area media ended and De Luz confronted Connerly with pointed questions that provoked a brief argument.

"You make your long statement in the form of a question, then you start filibustering," Connerly said, clearly miffed. "If you want an answer, I'll give you an answer."

Afterward, De Luz told reporters that Proposition 54 would devastate efforts to fight discrimination. "You can't go to court in today's world without data," he said. "If you have no data, you have no court case."