California lawmakers are considering novel legislation that would permit "special measures" to benefit minority and ethnic groups despite a statewide ban on preferential treatment based on race or gender in public employment, education or contracting.

AB 703 would use language from a 1960s United Nations treaty to define racial discrimination in a way that supporters say could benefit underrepresented groups without violating prohibitions in California's Proposition 209, approved in 1996.

The bill does not spell out precisely what measures could be taken, but Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally, the Compton Democrat who wrote AB 703, said his goal is to encourage outreach programs that do not provide preferential treatment.

For years, controversy has raged among elected officials and in California courts over the extent to which Proposition 209 applies to outreach programs, which can range from simple job advertising to rules aimed at boosting the number of female and minority contractors.

Supporters of the new bill say it could send a green light to public agencies that favor creation of outreach programs but fear opposition or costly litigation tied to Proposition 209.

Ward Connerly, the University of California regent who led the drive for Proposition 209, contends that Dymally's bill is "Orwellian doublespeak" that ignores the will of voters.

He's vowing to file suit if AB 703 is signed into law.

"The ink wouldn't be dry before we'd be in court, he said.

The measure passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee, 10-1, and now goes to the Assembly floor, where it could come up for a vote as early as today. Gov. Gray Davis has not yet taken a stand on the measure.

By law, legislators can't overthrow or undercut Proposition 209, but they can clarify its meaning -- and AB 703 proposes to do so.

Proposition 209 does not specifically define "racial discrimination" but bans preferential treatment or discrimination based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.

Dymally proposes to fill that gap by using a definition that stemmed from the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and was part of a treaty adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1965.

AB 703 defines racial discrimination as "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

AB 703 then raises eyebrows among critics by stating -- consistent with the U.N. treaty -- that "special measures" taken on behalf of underrepresented groups are not necessarily discriminatory.

Specifically, the bill exempts "special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure (them) equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms."

AB 703 does not define the scope or nature of such special measures, saying only that they cannot result in maintaining "separate rights for different racial groups" and must be discontinued once their objectives are met.

Under Dymally's bill, government agencies need not prove racial discrimination before launching special measures. Individuals would have no legal standing to contest such measures unless they resulted in preferential treatment.

Dymally contends that passage of AB 703 would not weaken Proposition 209.

Special measures "cannot give preferential treatment on the basis of race," he said.

Dymally said his bill would not allow race to be considered for college admissions, for example, or permit public agencies to set quotas or goals in contracting with minorities.

Connerly called AB 703 "laughable" nonetheless.

"It turns the notion of equal treatment on its head," Connerly said, by allowing race-based programs "as long as you're trying to advance the interests of minorities."

Four years ago, separate legislation to remedy confusion over outreach programs, SB 44, was vetoed by Davis. The bill stated unequivocally that public agencies can participate in race-based outreach and recruitment when a minority group is underrepresented in public sector employment or educational institutions.

In his veto message, Davis said he had opposed passage of Proposition 209, but added, "I believe the forms of outreach envisioned in this legislation violate the provisions of that initiative."

Supporters of AB 703 include the California chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the California Black Faculty and Staff Association, the Association of Black Personnel in City Government and the East Bay Municipal Utility District.

Alice Huffman, president of the NAACP's state chapter, said confusion over outreach programs could become "total chaos" as Californians prepare to vote in March on a ballot measure to bar collection of most racial and ethnic data by state and local governments.

Randele Kanouse, a spokesman for the East Bay utility, said his district currently operates an outreach program that notifies small businesses and those with minority or female owners when bids are solicited for contracts.

AB 703 would "ensure that public entities may still engage in focused affirmative action efforts by allowing a California employer to take voluntary race-conscious actions to ensure equal opportunity in public employment and contracting," Kanouse wrote to lawmakers.

But Sharon Browne, an attorney for the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, called Dymally's measure an "end run" around state law.

"Proposition 209 says you're not to use race or sex in any of these public programs," Browne said. "This clearly is an attempt to get around that."