The state Supreme Court voted Tuesday to delay deciding on a proposal that would require judges to provide lawyers on cases where basic human needs are at stake.

The court first heard testimonies on the petition brought by Civil Action for Wisconsin last Tuesday, which aims to establish a right to counsel in civil cases involving food, shelter, safety, health and child custody.

John Ebbott, director of the Legal Action of Wisconsin Milwaukee office who brought the petition to provide lawyers in these cases to the court, refused to comment on the case until after the court’s final decision is made in November.

The Supreme Court justices discussed the key components of the case at an Open Administrative Conference Monday before the delay of the decision. Many of the justices were concerned about the costs of implementing this proposal in the current economy.

Justice Ann Ziegler said when the state starts “gutting” the court system financially, the justices are going to have to stand up to the Legislature and explain the court needs to be properly funded in order to function at a constitutional level.

“These funds will come from somewhere,” Ziegler said. “They can’t just tax people and have more money come in. There is a pool of money, and if it doesn’t come from the Legislature, it’s [going to] come from somewhere. So we have to say as a court what we think should be cut or what we are willing to give up to fund, [which] I think is a very laudable, worthy petition.”

Jay Heck, executive director of the non-profit organization Common Cause in Wisconsin, spoke to the notion of affordability in the proposed petition.

“It undermines our whole system of law,” Heck said. “I appreciate that resources are scarce, but it would seem that the state ought to provide resources despite the defendants’ ability to pay for an attorney. Otherwise you have a two-tier system of justice in the state for only the wealthy or those who can afford representation.”

Another of the conference’s key focuses surrounded the state’s constitutional right to appointing council and its relationship with due process.

Heck said it should be within the state’s responsibility to pay for a defender in order to assure all citizens be protected.

“If a county cannot afford to pay a public defender, then I think it is the responsibility of the state to pay,” Heck said. “Then it becomes a question of resources, if that means a tax increase or diverted from some other state program. It seems to me that this a pretty fundamental right that needs to be protected for all citizens of Wisconsin.”

There was also discussion of if the proposal should be rolled out over a period of time.

Justice Patrick Crooks offered the suggestion for possibly implementing the petition in the future in a way that would be financially realistic.

“There should be a right to council in the cases outlined in the petition,” Crooks said. “I think being realistic about the finances, there should be implementation over a period of time. I think we should emphasize that judges have some discretion to appoint council.”