White House May Dilute Racial Justice Act : Sentencing: Officials are publicly quiet about the controversial plan. But they are discussing ways to ease Death Row measure through Congress.

After months of maintaining a low profile on the issue, Administration officials are quietly seeking a compromise to retain a pared-down version of the controversial Racial Justice Act in the final crime bill.

In preliminary talks with members of Congress, Administration officials are discussing revisions that would significantly narrow but not eliminate the measure--as Republicans and some Senate Democrats are demanding.

As passed by the House, the racial justice measure would allow all prisoners on Death Row to challenge their sentences with statistics showing that the jurisdiction sentencing them had applied the death penalty proportionately more often to minorities than to whites.

The Administration is exploring alternatives that would allow such challenges only by prisoners sentenced after the act is approved and that would lower the burden of proof prosecutors must meet to overcome the inference of bias, a senior official said.

Most important, the official said, the Administration is discussing limiting the bill solely to capital cases in the federal system--a change that would essentially reduce the legislation to a symbolic precedent since more than 99% of the prisoners now on Death Row have been sentenced through state courts.

Administration officials acknowledged that it will be like “threading a needle” to craft a compromise that satisfies House liberals who favor a stronger version of the act and Senate Democrats who fear that any racial justice provision will prompt a Republican filibuster when the crime bill returns to that chamber from conference committee.

“Many inside the Administration are skeptical it can be done,” said the senior official. But Administration officials appear committed to ensuring that even if the racial justice bill ultimately is dropped, the liberal legislators and constituencies supporting it do not blame Clinton.

While seeking compromise in private, the Administration is struggling to articulate a public position on the polarizing issue. In an appearance Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Atty. Gen. Janet Reno would say little about the House version of the legislation.

On Monday, President Clinton also spoke cautiously about the bill, although he said: “We think that you can absolutely have a racial justice provision that will do some good.”

As much as any other single provision, the racial justice measure illustrates the imposing difficulty of holding together a legislative majority for the sprawling crime bill. While the anti-discrimination provision is extremely important to liberals, particularly the Congressional Black Caucus, it is anathema to Republicans and conservative Democrats.

If the provisions are dropped in conference, it is likely that more members of the Black Caucus will condemn the bill and sharpen the racial divides implicit in the crime debate. If they are included, they could prompt a Republican filibuster in the Senate--and heated charges from conservatives that Clinton had undermined enforcement of the death penalty, despite his strong support for capital punishment in the 1992 campaign.

Civil rights groups and other backers said that the measure is necessary to end a pattern of discrimination in the enforcement of capital sentences. Opponents, including a national organization of district attorneys and state attorneys general, maintain that the procedural hurdles would effectively eliminate the death penalty.

During the House debate, the Administration studiously avoided a public position, frustrating proponents and opponents alike. But officials said that the Administration is involved in quiet talks with proponents, including Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose), to craft a compromise Clinton could support.

Those talks blew up just before the Easter recess, when opposition from the Black Caucus and civil rights groups convinced Edwards not to offer an amendment narrowing the act to future and federal cases, Administration sources said. Supporters took that broader version to the floor and prevailed in a 217-212 vote last Wednesday.

On Tuesday, Edwards warned against further dilution of the measure. “We’ve already drawn a line in the sand,” he said. “We’re absolutely not going to give in on that. . . . It would send the worst possible signal to African Americans that whites don’t care about black lives.”

But Senate leaders already have sent clear signals that the House bill has no chance of clearing the upper chamber.

Times staff writer William J. Eaton contributed to this story.