Killea Victory Viewed as Backlash on Bishop : Politics: Untimely intervention of Maher on abortion issue is widely blamed for Democrat’s success in a dependably Republican San Diego County district.

Democratic Assemblywoman Lucy Killea’s upset victory in a heavily Republican state Senate district was widely seen Wednesday in both political and religious circles as a backlash against a Roman Catholic bishop’s intrusion in the race, as well as renewed proof of the volatility of the abortion issue.

The day-after explanations for Killea’s narrow victory in the solidly conservative 39th state Senate District began and ended with Bishop Leo T. Maher, who made Killea a national cause celebre in mid-November when he barred her from receiving Communion because of her pro-choice stand on abortion.

Killea herself downplayed the impact of Maher’s decision, arguing--as she had throughout the campaign--that it was “only one of many” factors in the race. But the candidate whom she defeated, GOP Assemblywoman Carol Bentley of El Cajon, and other Republican leaders in Sacramento on Wednesday blamed the party’s loss of the seat primarily on the controversy over Maher’s sanction, which dominated the final three weeks of the campaign to the virtual exclusion of other issues.

Maher’s sanction against Killea, Republicans argued, not only generated a groundswell of sympathy for her, but also motivated other voters by reviving the familiar debate over separation of church and state.

“If the bishop had stayed out of it, I would have won--no doubt about it,” Bentley said Wednesday. “Overnight, he turned my opponent into an international celebrity and martyr. That’s pretty tough to overcome.”

Republican state Senate Leader Ken Maddy added, “It is obvious the voters . . . did not approve of (Maher’s) perceived intervention in this campaign.”

Some Catholic theologians and priests also faulted Maher’s move as ill-advised--”proof that political wisdom does not necessarily come with episcopal consecration,” in the words of Father Thomas Reese, a fellow at Georgetown University’s Woodstock Theological Center.

“If there was any enthusiasm out there among bishops to imitate Maher’s action, this certainly is going to pour cold water on it,” Reese said. “The lesson of this election is that bishops ought to be very cautious about doing anything that could be construed as interfering with politics.”

Maher himself, however, said Wednesday that he had no second thoughts about his controversial decision, which drew alternate interpretations in recent weeks as a deserved punishment of one who flouted church orthodoxy or an unwelcome church intrusion in politics. Under the same circumstances, he would take the same action, Maher said.

“No popular vote or public opinion can change in any way the divine law that directs and guides mankind,” Maher said in a statement released by his office. “In this case, we continue our pastoral endeavor of proclaiming . . . that life is an absolute value. The pro-choice movement is a pro-death movement.”

Democratic leaders hailed Killea’s upset victory, which they said creates a “soft” 21-19 pro-choice majority in the Senate, as evidence that the abortion issue may become the party’s political trump card in the 1990s. The party’s pro-choice position on the issue, Democratic officials argued, is much more compatible with public sentiment than the Republicans’ generally more restrictive stance.

Abortion “is a political time bomb located in the central core of the Republican Party,” said Senate Democratic Leader Barry Keene. “The bottom line in this race is that the right to choose issue and the separation of church and state issue can overwhelm a district’s natural tendency to automatically vote Republican. The blinders are finally off.”

Mary Jean Collins, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based Catholics for a Free Choice, argued that Killea’s victory demonstrates that the Republican Party nationwide “has some major problems ahead in the ‘90s.”

“The Republican Party is out of sync with the public on abortion,” Collins said. “That fact could change the political landscape nationwide, because if this race showed anything, it showed that the pro-choice issue is strong enough to overcome even partisan preferences.”

State GOP Chairman Frank Visco, however, cautioned against overly sweeping interpretations of Tuesday’s election, noting that its unique circumstances blur the picture of how its lessons might apply to future races.

“Am I concerned? Yes, of course,” Visco said. “Any time a Democrat wins in a Republican district, I’m concerned. Clearly, this shows that we as a party have to do a better job explaining our position on this very, very important issue of abortion. . . . But the fact is, this was such an unusual race in so many respects . . . the long-range lessons get a little confusing.”

Although Senate Democratic Leader Keene said that pro-choice forces will have a razor-thin majority after Killea assumes her seat, the abortion issue is so emotional and politically unstable as to make such vote-count breakdowns hazardous. Activists on both sides of the issue said Wednesday that, at best, Killea’s election gives pro-choice supporters a better chance--but certainly no guarantee--of gaining a majority on abortion and family planning issues in the Senate.

Final unofficial vote totals show that Killea received 61,860 votes (50.9%), to 59,496 votes (49%) for Bentley. A minor third candidate, public defender Tom Connolly of El Cajon, was little more than an obscure political footnote in the race, drawing only about 50 write-in votes.

A 67-year-old former San Diego city councilwoman now in her fourth term in the Assembly, Killea began the special 39th District race as an underdog, despite being better known, better financed and having a longer legislative resume than Bentley, a freshman whose major asset was the district’s 49%-38% Republican registration edge.

Killea’s uphill candidacy was galvanized, however, by Maher’s unusually harsh--and, many felt, improperly political--sanction, which ignited a firestorm that Bentley consultant David Lewis said “took control of this race like nothing I’ve ever seen in any election.”

Calling Killea “an advocate of this most heinous crime,” Maher ordered her not to take Communion at Mass unless she recanted her pro-choice position--something that Killea made it clear she did not intend to do.

By making Killea the first American Catholic elected official so severely punished for a pro-choice stand on abortion, Maher provoked another heated round in the continuing public debate touched off by last summer’s U.S. Supreme Court decision restricting abortion rights. In addition, Maher’s decision prompted a parallel debate over the church-state separation question--a factor that many argued played a pivotal role in Killea’s victory.

“While the bishop did not intend his action as a political statement, I am convinced (voters) used their vote for Lucy Killea as a statement against the church’s involvement in politics,” GOP Senate Leader Maddy said.

Equally important, Maher’s action transformed the unassuming, low-key Killea into an overnight media star who made national television appearances on the Phil Donahue show, “CBS This Morning” and other network news programs. Killea’s new-found fame, in turn, acted as a magnet for dollars and volunteers, helping her to outspend Bentley by a more than 2-to-1 margin--$317,000 to $128,000, as of last week.

Moreover, it riveted public attention on the very issue that Killea had always hoped to highlight as one of her major differences with Bentley, who opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or where the mother’s life is endangered.

Among Killea’s strategists, abortion was seen as precisely the kind of emotional issue that could persuade pro-choice Republicans to cross party lines and generate a higher-than-usual Democratic turnout--factors essential to her chances in the heavily Republican district.

Despite the abortion issue’s prominence in her strategy, Killea, not wanting to be labeled a single-issue candidate, persistently disputed attempts to frame the campaign as a referendum on that question--an argument that her victory did nothing to change.

“I certainly don’t think the bishop’s action won the election for me,” Killea said. “I think it may have been a wash. It brought me a lot of support, but it also energized my opponents. I think it may have cost me as many votes as it gained.”

Times staff writers Carl Ingram in Sacramento and Russell Chandler in Los Angeles contributed to this report.