Leaders cool to Kennedy request

Senate President Therese Murray, House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, and Governor Deval Patrick did not respond to requests for interviews or statements with their positions on Kennedy’s request, which he made to all three leaders in a poignant letter Tuesday.

Some involved in the discussions said privately that the silence was due in part to the fact that Murray has expressed serious reservations about changing the law.

Kennedy aides sought to downplay the significance of the leaders’ reluctance to take positions on his request.

“The senator doesn’t expect or demand immediate action, and the situation doesn’t warrant it,’’ said a senior Kennedy aide, who asked for anonymity to discuss private conversations.

Some state lawmakers expressed opposition to changing the law.

“I’ve got great respect for Senator Kennedy, but I think we’ve been down this road,’’ said state Representative Brian P. Wallace, a Democrat from South Boston. “I’m in favor of having an election; there’s nothing fairer than that.

“It just opens up a whole can of worms all again,’’ he said, alluding to the idea of appointing an interim senator.

The Globe reported yesterday that Kennedy, who is battling cancer and has largely been absent from Washington in recent months, has asked state lawmakers to give Patrick the power to appoint a successor on a temporary basis, in the event of Kennedy’s death. Under the proposal, the appointee would serve only about five months, until a permanent successor is chosen by voters in a special election.

Kennedy said in his letter that it is vital that Massachusetts have two votes in the US Senate during the five months between a vacancy and the special election. The senator did not specifically mention his battle with brain cancer or the health care debate in Washington. But his request clearly stems from his concern that President Obama’s efforts to win passage of a health care bill could hinge on being able to muster every Democratic vote in the Senate.

Murray, DeLeo, and Patrick all released statements Wednesday that praised Kennedy’s service but did not address the substance of his proposal. Yesterday, they declined to add anything further.

State Representative Michael Moran, a Democrat from Brighton who is House chairman of the Election Laws Committee, said he and his staff are researching Kennedy’s request and informally talking to colleagues to gauge their reactions. No action on a proposed change in the statute would take place until lawmakers return in September.

Dan Payne, a Democratic media adviser, said it is understandable that the Beacon Hill leadership is treading carefully.

“This is not a simple matter at all,’’ he said. “They have to think of the real-world fallout, such as being careful not to cut off the chances of anybody who wants to run for the seat.’’

Kennedy’s request did find some support on Beacon Hill yesterday, including from state Senator Robert A. O’Leary, whose district includes Kennedy’s Hyannis Port home. O’Leary said he would be proud to sponsor the change in law.

“Given his role in health care, it would be tragic if he wasn’t able to have a vote in that and it took one vote to get it done,’’ O’Leary told State House News Service.

Republicans, both in Massachusetts and in Washington, warned Democrats in the Legislature that they would face a political backlash if they engineered a change in state law to benefit their party. Republicans pointed out that Democrats rejected making precisely this change five years ago, because they did not want Governor Mitt Romney to have a chance to appoint a Republican to the Senate in the event that Senator John F. Kerry won the presidency.

“The hypocrisy is astounding,’’ said House minority leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. “If we had a Republican governor right now, would we be getting the same letter?’’

Jones continued: “If this institution supports the change, it is clearly a corrupt institution. It’s not making judgments based on what’s best for the whole Commonwealth, but based on what’s best for one political party.’’

Jones was part of the Republican minority in the House that sponsored an amendment in 2004 that would have allowed the governor to make an interim appointment in event of a Senate vacancy. With a strong push-back from Democrats, it failed by a 44-to-104 vote.

“This is a result of playing politics with the law in 2004, and it’s coming back to bite everyone now,’’ said Senate Republican leader Richard R. Tisei.

The Republican National Committee in Washington, where GOP lawmakers are fighting with the Democrats for every vote in the health care showdown, was equally tough in its reaction to Kennedy’s request.

“The integrity of this process already took a hit when the Democrats made the blatant power play to take this authority away from Governor Romney,’’ the RNC said in a statement. “It’s hard to see how they would have the credibility to reverse themselves simply because it’s now politically inconvenient.’’

Democrats scoffed at the GOP criticism, saying that Republicans in the Massachusetts House and Senate had fought in 2004 to preserve the appointment powers of the governor. “Talk about major hypocrisy,’’ said state Senator Marc R. Pacheco, a Democrat from Taunton. “You’ve got to be kidding me. They fought it all along the way.’’

Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, who left the Democratic Party last month to lay the groundwork for a potential independent gubernatorial candidacy, also opposed changing the law.

“For better or worse, the law was changed back in ’04, and we should stick with the law the way it is,’’ said Cahill, who flatly ruled out running for Kennedy’s seat.

“We should stay away from having one person make those decisions,’’ Cahill added. “A senator should be directly elected by the people.’’

Susan Milligan of the Globe staff contributed to this report.