An internal proposal to open state Supreme Court deliberations to the public following a physical altercation between two justices this summer was not approved by the judicial body last week.

On Thursday, five of seven State Supreme Court Justices opposed Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson’s proposal for open case deliberations, according to a statement from the court.

Abrahamson proposed her idea after reports were released concerning an altercation between Justices David Prosser and Ann Walsh Bradley, where Prosser allegedly placed his hands on Bradley’s neck, according to police reports obtained by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. No one was charged in the event.

In a statement, Abrahamson said she hoped her proposal would give court members a reason to behave more appropriately during deliberations.

“We should be, above all, a place where disputes are resolved – openly, civilly, professionally – not where they are created,” Abrahamson said in the statement.

While creating open deliberations can instill decorum, University of Wisconsin political science professor Charles Franklin said it can also prevent court debate from being free and unfettered. With cameras running, speakers could feel particularly constrained, he said.

“There was a lot of resistance to cameras filming debates, with arguments that it would either intimidate members so they couldn’t speak their mind, or they would grandstand for the cameras,” Franklin said.

Franklin said the U.S. Congress is the only model for the open deliberations proposal.

He added having open proceedings does not necessarily introduce automatic decorum or openness in debates.

“It strikes me as reasonable that people could have a discussion about it, but any notion that it would quickly or fundamentally alter the interpersonal relations of the court is probably not so likely to have happened,” he said.

While it is not unusual to see justices who disagree with each other in courts, Franklin said it is rare to have those personal feelings spill over into open confrontation as it did between Prosser and Bradley. He said the altercation damaged the court’s reputation for judicious behavior and crossed the notion of judicial temperament that judges should be able to control themselves.

On controversial and highly politicized court cases, the court’s dynamic is tense, with votes split 3-4 with a conservative tilt, Franklin said. This is not considered unusual, as many courts across the country are generally split.

“Coming on top of the disputes of the spring, the court’s difficulties certainly reinforce the notion that Wisconsin is a deeply divided state at the moment, somewhat different from our long-term reputation,” he said.

Franklin said Wisconsin’s practice of electing the state judiciary has contributed to the recent tension in the court, adding the polarization in the Legislature has also spilled into court elections.

He said Wisconsin is seeing the use of campaign tactics that should accompany the election of a legislator rather than a judicial official.

“As long as we have an elected judiciary that is also caught up in these very partisan, ideological campaigns, we’re likely to see supreme courts that are polarized in the way that we are seeing state legislatures more polarized than before,” Franklin said.