As California speeds toward the Oct. 7 recall election, a voter initiative that's a major issue all its own has nearly vanished into the shadows: Will California's public agencies, state and local, be allowed to continue to collect and keep vital data by race and ethnicity? By sheer accident, it's on the same ballot as the recall.

Ward Connerly, the Sacramento businessman and University of California regent who is the measure's chief sponsor, calls it the Racial Privacy Initiative (RPI), but on the ballot it's Proposition 54, the Classification By Race, Ethnicity, Color or National Origin Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Proposition 54 - son (or maybe nephew) of California's Proposition 209, which prohibits race preferences in public education, hiring and contracting, and which was also sponsored by Connerly - rests on similar premises: that the continued counting of individuals by race - in university enrollments, civil service jobs and a host of other areas - perpetuates racism rather than allowing it to die. His measure, he says, would move the state toward becoming a race-blind society.
Moreover, says Connerly, California's multiethnic population, many of whom belong to at least two categories, makes it ever more difficult to maintain any meaningful statistics. Proposition 54 would still allow ethnicity to be used for certain health and law enforcement purposes, and where ethnic data are required by the federal government.

Not surprisingly, there's widespread - and often vehement - opposition from health organizations, labor unions, civil rights groups and a long list of others who argue that Proposition 54 would make it harder to stop exactly the kind of racial discrimination that Connerly's Proposition 209 forbids, and that, more fundamentally, it confuses cause and effect. You don't end the fever by throwing away the thermometer.

But Proposition 54, in addition to its own consequences, is now also inextricably wound up with the recall of Gov. Gray Davis, who, in an obvious appeal to his liberal constituencies, has already come out against it. More important, political consultant Larry Grisolano is a key figure in both "no" campaigns - Californians Against the Costly Recall and the Coalition for an Informed California, whose slogan is "No on the Information Ban." Grisolano and others in the campaign aren't sure if (or how) the two "no" campaigns will be linked.

Depending on who's on the ballot to replace Davis, it's possible that a large proportion - though hardly all - of the no voters on the Connerly initiative will vote no on the recall.

In a Field Poll released last week, 50 percent of voters said they'd support the measure; 29 percent opposed it. But the poll also showed that pro-recall voters overwhelmingly favored the Connerly measure, while opponents of the recall also opposed Proposition 54, albeit by a narrow margin.

Although the Field Poll didn't ask the reverse question, it seems likely that if the no on 54 coalition can bring minority voters to the polls, they might help Davis keep his job. In the desultory gubernatorial election last year, Davis lost the majority of the white vote; he was re-elected only because he got the support of blacks and especially Latinos.

An earlier Field Poll in mid-July showed Latinos almost evenly split on the recall. But to the extent Grisolano and others can link the two issues among minority voters by connecting them, once again, with the Republican Party that backed Proposition 187, the 1994 measure that sought to deny schooling to illegal aliens, and to Proposition 209, they may be able to increase the chances of beating both.

Connerly seems to have no strong campaign organization - he's counting on its inherent appeal - and thus is not likely to bring many additional conservative voters to the polls. But to the extent that the backers of the Davis recall can bring committed voters to the polls, Connerly's measure could benefit.

Conversely, there's also a down side to this potentially symbiotic no-campaign relationship. Grisolano says he hopes to have $3 million or $4 million for his campaign, enough for some TV. But since he's fishing in one of the same money pools - the unions particularly - as the Davis anti-recall campaign, he's marginally competing with himself.

Grisolano, who has a long record working for Democrats, including Al Gore in the 2000 presidential campaign, says it was also accidental that he became a key player in both no campaigns this year.

Until the recall qualified, the Connerly measure was slated for the March 2004 primary ballot. It's only because of the special election that it and another measure will be on the October ballot.

But he also acknowledges that there's "a lot of constituency overlap" between potential no voters on the recall and on Proposition 54 (conversely, there's also a strong overlap between those intending to vote yes). There also seems to be considerable discussion about a common effort.

All of that, of course, is also subject to a long list of imponderables. But in California politics these days, that's not news.