This article provides a comparative introduction to the organization and operations of West Virginia's judiciary. It focuses on West Virginia's circuit and magistrate courts and West Virginia's family law master system because they adjudge the bulk of legal disputes in the state. An article examining the Supreme Court of Appeals'supervisory role in the state's judicial system will appear in the next issue of the West Virginia Public Affairs Reporter.

The West Virginia Judicial Survey

Relatively little has been written about the state's circuit judges and magistrates. Moreover, West Virginia's state government publishes little information about its judiciary. To fill this informational void, a survey was mailed to the state's circuit judges and magistrates. It was designed to supplement what is known about their activities and attitudes. The survey was mailed during the autumn of 1991. Sixty-seven percent of the magistrates (105) and 68 percent of the circuit judges (41) completed the survey. These response rates are considered to be very good for mail surveys (Becker 1966; Provine 1986; Ryan, et al. 1980). The survey's results are used to illustrate various points made in the following sections.

The Organization of West Virginia's Courts

The organizational structure of West Virginia's courts is determined by provisions in the state's constitution and by state law. The Judicial Reorganization Amendment of 1974, which became effective in 1976, established a "unitary" or hierarchical judicial system in the state. Patterned after the system adopted in New Jersey in 1947, the Amendment replaced the disorganized judicial system that had been in place under Article VIII, the Judicial Power article, of the state's constitution. Compared with other states, the 1974 Amendment provided for a very simple assignment of judicial tasks.

West Virginia's Supreme Court of Appeals

West Virginia's Supreme Court of Appeals is an appellate court charged with the review of circuit court decisions and certain other adjudications, Regardless of whether a case is taken to the Supreme Court of Appeals on original jurisdiction (by receipt of extraordinary writs of certiorari, habeas corpus, mandamus, or prohibition from the Court), appeal, or as a certified question of law from a circuit or federal court, all petitioners must petition the justices to docket the case (to list the case for consideration). Thus, the Supreme Court, by majority vote, has complete discretion over its docket. The New Hampshire Supreme Court is the only other federal or state appellate court to have full discretion over its docket.

West Virginia's five Supreme Court justices are elected on a state-wide, partisan ballot. Currently, all five of the justices are Democrats, They can serve an unlimited numberof terms and must have been admitted to the practice of law for at least 10 years priorto their election. Their 12-year terms are staggered. West Virginia is one of only 18 states with five, rather than the more typical seven or nine, seats on its Supreme Court (Conference of State Court Administrators et al. 1991).

Although the Reorganization Amendment of 1974 permiffed the state legislature to create intermediate courts of appeals, none have been established. West Virginia is one of only 13 states that does not have an intermediate appellate court.

West Virginia's Circuit Courts

West Virginia's 31 circuit courts serve as the state's comprehensive trial courts of general jurisdiction. They have appellate jurisdiction over magistrate and municipal courts, hear all felony criminal cases and civil suits over $3,000, and review domestic relations cases.

Circuit judges are elected on a partisan ballot for eightyear terms, with all circuit judges selected in the same electionyear. Circuit judges can serve an unlimited number of terms and must have been admitted to the practice of law for at least five years prior to their election. Currently, there are 10 Republican and 52 Democrat circuit judges. They are each paid an annual salary of $65,000.

The survey data revealed that West Virginia's typical circuit judge had a total of 24 years of legal practice, ranging from five years to 43 years, and had served as acircuit judge for seven years. Most of these judges (75.6 percent) were in private practice immediately prior to their election. Of the judges who were in private practice, 69.7 percent claimed a general, nonspecialized practice, and 27.2 percent had a specialized civil practice. Of those in the sample, 17.1 percent were serving in prosecuting attorney off ices immediately prior to their election. Only one circuit judge had specialized in the private practice of criminal law. Both the percentage of circuit judges who had been serving in private practice and the percentage of circuit judges who had been working as attorneys immediately prior to their election is greater than the national average found in a 1977 survey (Ryan, et al. 1980).

In contrast to 13 other states, West Virginia does not have specialized courts for probate, chancery cases, or familycases. It also does not have unique courts for certain geographical areas of the state.

West Virginia's Magistrate Courts

The Reorganization Amendment of 1974 replaced West Virginia's justice of the peace system with a system of magistrate courts. The Amendment left it to the legislature to detail the magistrate's duties and procedures. The legislature subsequently approved the Magistrate Act of 1976which fixedthe magistrates'number, salary, qualifications, and discipline. The Act also defined available supporting staff, the duties of clerks and assistants, and state and countyfinancial supportforthe office. It also delineated the magistrates' civil and criminal jurisdiction, their basic pretrial and trial procedures, and the costs, fines, and other remedies that they may levy.

West Virginia's magistrates are elected on a partisan ballot on a county-wide basis for four-year terms. Magistrates can serve an unlimited number of terms. Eachcounty has at least two magistrates and counties with greater populations receive additional magistrates through an apportionment scheme. In 1992, 31 counties had two magistrates. Kanawha County had the largest number of magistrates (10).

Seventy-seven percent of the magistrates responding to the survey identified themselves as Democrats, 21.9 percent identified themselves as Republicans, andone magistrate indicated no party affiliation.

Magistrates do not have to possess a law degree. Only three of the magistrates responding to the survey (2.9 percent) possessed a law degree, 22.9 percent had a college degree, 45.7 percent claimed at least some college level instruction, 24.8 percent held a high school diploma but no college instruction, and 3.8 percent possessed a G. E. D.

The majority of magistrates (52.4 percent) indicated that they had a career in the private sector prior to their election, 20 percent were civil servants, and 12.4 percent held another elected office. The range of careers was very diverse - from farmer to police officer to homemaker. Comparable national data on magistrates and other lower court judges does not exist.

The Magistrate Act has been amended several times since 1976, largely to adjust salaries, reapportion the number of magistrates, adjust court costs, and to permit the payment of fines by credit card. For example, in 1987 the Magistrate Act was amended to abolish the fee system of compensation that had characterized the justice of the peace system. Since then, there have been two different salary levels for magistrates, based on the population of the magistrate's county. Magistrates in counties with less than 10,000 people currently are paid $23,625. Magistrates in counties with more than 10,000 people currently are paid $30,000.

Magistrates have county-wide limited jurisdiction over misdemeanors, civil claims under$3,000, traff ic and natural resource offenses, cases concerning unlawful entry and detainer of real estate, and juvenile offenses. They also hold preliminary examinations in felony cases, issue arrest and search warrants, and set bail. Bail can be set up to the amount of the potential fine, unless there is a potential for jail time. The magistrate has the discretion to set bail in that circumstance.

Magistrate courts employ six-person juries atthe request of the parties. West Virginia and Texas are the only states that provide the unqualified right to jury trial in their lowest courts.

Magistrates cannot consider actions in equity, eminent domain, real estate titles and liens, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, or slander and libel. Although their criminal jurisdiction is not significantly diff erent from that of similar courts in other states, their civil jurisdiction is more restricted (Council of State Court Administrators 1991).

Magistrates are prohibited from holding office it another memberoftheir immediate family is also a magistrate in the county. Also, magistrates are required to attend and complete a course of instruction after their election and attend continuing education sessions afterassuming off ice. The Supreme Court of Appeals, through the Administrative Office, conducts the courses of instruction. This requirement is unusual. Most states do not require post-election education of their judicial officials. Magistrates who fail to attend instruction sessions are subjectto penalties imposed through the state's system of judicial discipline.

The Reorganization Amendment of 1974 banned the creation of other county courts of special jurisdiction, and eliminated special jurisdiction criminal andfamily lawcourts. It permittedthe continuation of existing municipal courts, but limited their authority to the enforcement of municipal ordinances, typically traffic offenses. The Amendment required compensation of municipal judges by salary, not fee. It also changed the name of the county courts, which were composed of the county commissioners, to county commissions. They are charged with duties in probate, guardianship, and election disputes concerning county and district offices.

West Virginia's Family Law Master System

In 1986, the state legislature created a unique family law master system to fulf ill its responsibilities under the federal Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984. The family law masters replaced divorce commissioners, who were local lawyers appointed by the circuit judge to adjudge divorce, custody, and child support conflicts.

Family law masters are attorneys appointed in 21 regions of the state for four-year terms by the governor. Two masters serve the Kanawha County region. West Virginia is the only state to use this system to deal with family law matters. All of the other states have established a special division orhave assigned specific judges of thetrialcourtof general jurisdiction to deal with these matters, or have assigned them to a family court, a probate court, or, in New York, to a surrogate's court. Other states have assigned certain family law matters, such as child support payments disputes, to an administrative agency.

The Administrative Off ice and Support Services

Several offices support West Virginia's judiciary. The most important of these is the Administrative Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals. It manages the courts' state appropriated finances. It also administers judicial branch personnel policies, including equal employment opportunity, compensation, job classification, and health and retirementpolicies. Also, the Clerk of the Circuit Court, an elected post in each county, manages case filings and records and collects court fees. The clerks are subject to an annual audit by the state's Department of Tax and Revenue and must operate under the direction of the Supreme Court of Appeals and the judges of their circuit.

The Magistrate Act also permits circuit judges to appoint commissioners in chancery and general receivers (lawyers who manage complex cases or enforce judicial orders), official court reporters to transcribe trial proceedings, and jury commissioners to manage the impanelment of jurors. Also, deputy clerks can be hired in certain circumstances and magistrates can select their own assistants.

The survey asked the state's circuit judges and magistrates to rank the efficiency of their secretaries, the probation office, the clerk serving their court, and, for circuit judges, their reporter, on a seven-point scale. The vast majority of secretaries, court reporters, probation officers, and clerks won high evaluations from both magistrates and circuit judges. These evaluations were higher than the evaluations given to such personnel in a national survey of judges conducted in 1977 (Ryan et al. 1980).

Only three of the 41 circuit judges who responded to this survey question indicated that they had access to a law clerk. Two of these clerks were part-time and one judge shared a law clerk with another judge. This is far less than the national average. Nationally, approximately two of every five trial judges have access to a law clerk (Ryan et al. 1980).

The Number of Justices

The Reorganization Amendment of 1974 kept the number of justices in the Supreme Court of Appeals at five, but allowedthe state legislature tofix both the numberof circuits

and the number of circuit judges. Using these powers, the state legislature has increased the number of circuitjudges from 30 in 1966to 62 in 1993. It also rearranged the circuits' boundaries. In 1993,14 circuits will include more than one county, but 13 circuits will have only one judge. In the circuits serving more than one county, court must be scheduled regularly in each county and the judge or judges will ride the circuit.

The number of lower court judges in West Virginia has fallen from a high of 380 justices of the peace positions in 1958 to 152 magistrate positions in 1993. Currently, there are 22 family law masters and 122 municipal judges.

The Supreme Court of Appeals retains the authority to reassign judges and magistrates from one circuit or county to another on a temporary basis. The Court also can assign senior or retired circuit and Supreme Court of Appeals judges to try cases as a means to reduce caseloads across the state.

The Judicial Budget in West Virginia

The state legislature and governor cannot reject the Supreme Court of Appeals' appropriation requests. Currently, West Virginia's judiciary receives approximately $34 million annually from the state government. The courts actually spend slightly more than that amount because they generate additional revenue through various fees and court costs. For example, fees and court costs collected by magistrate courts are remitted by local clerks to the Administrative Office to create a pool of additional financial resources for these courts. Also, family law master staff and facilities funds come from fiscal contribution agreements between the Child Advocate Office, county commissions, and the Administrative Office. They also receive funds through fees and costs assessed by the masters. The family law masters also collect fixed fees for some services. Magistrate courts garnered fines and remittances of $15.76 millon in FY 1989-90 and gave $3.96 millon of that amount to the state's School Fund, $2.91 million to the recipients of worthless checks, $460,000to county treasuries, and $8.42 million to various state governmental accounts. Thus, unlike some states, full control over judicial branch revenues is not totally vested in the state's highest court.

Merit Selection Systems

West Virginia, Arkansas, and Texas are the only states that elect all judicial officers on a partisan ballot (Council of State Governments 1992). Most other states have abandoned the partisan election of all of judicial off icers to ensure greater diversity in their judiciary. Thirty-three states have adopted some form of nominating commission, gubernatorial appointment, and retention election scheme, known as "merit selection," to select at least some of their judges.

Judicial Political Activities

West Virginia's circuit judges and magistrates are politically active and politically aware. Nearly half (46.3 percent) of the circuit judges responding to the survey said that they considered themselves to be politicians, compared with only 16.2 percent of the magistrates. Yet, of the magistrates, 4.8 percent reported they were very involved and 43.8 percent reported they were involved to some extent with their county party organization. No circuit Judges said that they were very involved and only 24.4 percent said that they were involved to some extent with their county party organization.

Magistrates spent more time campaigning for off ice than circuit judges. More than half of the magistrates (52.9 percent), compared with 41.7 percent of the circuit judges, spent morethan nine hours aweek campaigning in theirlast election. Thus, it appears that many magistrates act like politicians even it they not consider themselves to be politicians.

Circuit judges and magistrates also report extensive contacts with state legislators. Circuit judges and magistrates pay a great deal of attention to the legislature's actions, communicate regularly with at least one member of the legislature, and discuss all sorts of political issues with legislators. Interestingly, circuit judges and magistrates are much more likely to discuss general political issues with legislators than personal matters or matters affecting the courts.

Circuit judges and magistrates usually communicate with less than five legislators, principally senators and delegates that serve the locality of the court. Finally, circuit judges have a more positive perspective of the legislature's performance than do magistrates, but neither gives the legislature high marks.

Despite relatively frequent contact with the legislature, circuit judges and magistrates reported few ex parte contacts with them (improper discussions of a case outside the courtroom or without the presence of the parties that might bias the judge). Only one circuit judge and six magistrates reported ex parte contacts or case discussions initiated by a state legislator and only one of them reported ex parte contacts with state legislators more frequently than once a month. Also, six circuit judges reported ex parte contacts by city or county officials. None of them reported that such contacts occurred more than once a month. However, 25.7 percent of the magistrates reported ex parte contacts by city or county officials. None of them reported that such contacts occurred more than once a month.

With the exception of state legislators, the survey suggests that judges and magistrates have relatively few contacts with other public officials. Only about one out of every 10 circuit judges and magistrates reported weekly contactswith otherpublicoff icials about judicial operations. Conversely, roughly one out of every four judges and magistrates reported no contact with other public off icialson judicial operations.

The survey suggests that circuit judges were most likely to contact the Administrative Off ice of the Supreme Court of Appeals about personnel matters, budget, procedural rules, jurisdictional issues, and salary and benefits. They were most likely to contact county officials about facilities, and they were most likely to contact state legislators about the revision of statutes.

Magistrates also have relatively few contacts with other public officials and agencies. They reported the most contacts with the Administrative Office, followed by state legislators, county officials, and the Supreme Court of Appeals' justices. They almost never contacted federal officials. Like circuit judges, magistrates usually contacted the Administrative Office about personnel, budgetary, procedural rules, and jurisdictional issues. Magistrates contacted county officials most frequently about facilities, and state legislators about salary and benefits.

A Portrait of the Judiciary

The partisan electionof magistrates, judges, andjustices has produced a judiciary in West Virginia that, like the judiciaries of most other states, remains overwhelmingly white, male, and middle-aged (Wice 1991). There is only one black circuit judge in West Virginia, only one of the magistrates responding to the survey chose black as a racial identity, and no other judges or magistrates identified themselves as a member of a racial minority group. Also, despitethe electionof afemale justice tothe SupremeCourt of Appeals, in 1992 there was only one female circuit judge and 49 f emale magistrates (31.4 percent of all magistrates). In addition, like trial court judges in other states, most West Virginia circuit judges are middle-aged (Ryan et al. 1980). None of thejudgeswho respondedtothe surveywere under age 30, 2.4 percent were 30-39, 29.3 percent were 40-49, 26.8 percent were 50-59, 26.8 percent were 60-69, and 4.8 percent were over age 70 (9.8 percent did not respondto the question).

Magistrates are, on average, youngerthan circuit judges. One percent of the respondent magistrates were under age 30, 25 percent were 30-39, 21.9 percent were 40-49, 34.3 percent were 50-59, 11.4 percent were 60-69, and 4.8 percent were over age 70 (1.9 percent did not respond).

Eighty-three percent of circuit judges responding to the survey indicated that they attended WestVirginia University's College of Law, the state's only law school, and had acquired their initial perception of the role of attorneys and the law in the same legal community. Interestingly, 90.2 percent of circuit judges and 95.2 percent of magistrates attended elementary school in West Virginia. Since extensive research suggests the formation of political values is most salient during a person's elementary school years, West Virginia's judiciary largely acquired its fundamental orientations toward law and politics within the state prior to 1960 (Greenstein 1965; Sigel 1970; Jennings and Niemi 1974).

Judicial Education

Newly elected judges inWestVirginia mustbe attorneys, but they often lack special skills in judging. Like most other states, West Virginia has taken steps to train its judges. The Supreme Court of Appeals has encouraged and financially supported the training of circuit judges in various out-ofstate programs sponsored by the American Academy of Judicial Education and the National Judicial College, which off ers courses on the procedural and operational management of courts (Wice 1991). Also, the Supreme Court of Appeals requires circuit judges to attend two annual threeday-long state judicial conferences, featuring presentations on changes in current state law, federal decisions affecting state court procedures, alternatives to adjudication, and other timely topics. More than half of the judges responding to the survey (56.1 percent) reported attending the National Judicial College, 61 percent reported attending the Academy of Judicial Education, 41.5 percent reported attending other judicial training programs, and only two judges reported no judicial training.

Magistrates must attend training sessions scheduled by the Supreme Court of Appeals or face disciplinary action. During their four-year term, magistrates must pass four tests to demonstrate their knowledge of law and procedure.

West Virginia's training requirement for magistrates exceeds national norms. West Virginia ranks along with Pennsylvania in making a very strong effort to ensure that its lower court judiciary is well-informed and up-to-date. Some states still provide no training for their nonlawyer judges (Provine 1986).

Judicial Performance, Ethics, and Discipline

Other than elections, there is no regular procedure for evaluating the performance of West Virginia's judiciary. The Supreme Court of Appeals does, however, exert some control overcircuit judge behaviorthrough appellate review and its power to hold circuit judges in contempt of court for actions counter to Supreme Court of Appeals orders. Italso can censure or temporarily suspend any justice, judge, or magistrate for violating ethical rules it establishes and retire judges when physically or mentally incapacitated.

Recommendations for disciplinary action against justices, judges, and magistrates are referred to the Supreme Court of Appeals through a complaint process established by court rules. Complaints about judicial officers are considered by a nine-member Judicial Investigation Commission. By majority vote, the Commission can choose to file a complaint with the Judicial Hearing Board. If the ninemember Hearing Board cannot resolve the complaint by a prehearing conference or by a remedial action, it will hold a public hearing. If the Hearing Board finds an ethical violation, it can recommend admonishment, public or private reprimand, temporary suspension from dutiesforupto a year, and a fine of up to $5,000 against the judicial off icer. The Supreme Court of Appeals then decides whether to accept and enforce the Board's recommendation.

Circuit judge and magistrates can also be removed from off ice through the independent acts of impeachment by the House of Delegates and conviction by two-thirds vote of the StateSenate. Magistrates can also be removed from office by the circuit court after conviction of a felony, for a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, or for a willful violation of statutory duties or court rules established by the Supreme Court of Appeals that evidences neglect of duty, malfeasance in office, or official misconduct.

In some respects, West Virginia's disciplinary practices are atypical. In most states, the removal or retirement of unfit judges is left at least in part to the judiciary or a judicial qualifications commission. However, in West Virginia, as in Arkansas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin, the judiciary or a commission cannot remove judges who are found to be unf it for office (Council of State Governments 1992; Wice 1991).

The Courtroom Work Group

The term "courtroom work group" describes the representatives of the various independent offices which interact to adjudicate or settle legal conflicts (Eisenstein and Jacob 1977). What is striking about the majority of courtroom work groups in West Virginia is their small membership. The majority of West Virginia circuit judges (60 percent) work in a circuit with only one or two judges. In 1977, the date of the most recent national survey on this issue, only 28.4 percent of trial courts across the country had only one or two judges (Ryan, et al. 1980).

The small number of circuit judges in West Virginia means that judges generally handle a case throughout its adjudication, from pleadings to remedy. This is unusual. Nearly haft (40.9 percent) of the judges responding to the national survey reported handling just a few stages of adjudication, like arraignments or pretrial conferences, or only specific types of criminal or civil cases (Ryan, et al. 1980). In contrast, none of the judges responding to the survey reported handling just a few stages of adjudication.

The vast majority of West Virginia's magistrates work in counties with two or three magistrates. In 1992, only 11 counties had more than three magistrates, 13 counties had three magistrates, and 31 counties had only two magistrates.

West Virginia's circuit judges and its magistrates generally work apart from one another. This suggests that West Virginia's judiciary is generalist and isolated. However, this conclusion must be qualified. West Virginia's circuit judges and magistrates do occasionally sit outside their circuit or county. The assignment, managed by the Administrative Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals, normally occurs when there are conflicts of interest or delay problems in a particular court. Nearly all of the circuit judges (90.2 percent) reported sitting outside their circuit at least once, with a median number of 10 times. When adjusted for years of service, this amounted to one to two times a year. Of the magistrates, 81 percent reported sitting outside theircounty at least once, with a median number of five times. Thus, West Virginia's judges and magistrates do not always work with a small work group in a totally isolated environment.

West Virginia's Bar and the Courtroom Work Group

West Virginia has a relatively small Bar of about 3,100 active attorneys, of whom 1,129 (36 percent) practice or work for government in Kanawha County. Most of the state's attorneys graduated from West Virginia University's College of Law (approximately 75 percent) and work in small partnerships or as solo practitioners.

The relativelysmall size of West Virginia's Baraffectsthe composition of the state's courtroom work groups. In their most recent 50 civil cases, magistrates reported the appearance of fewer than 15 different attorneys as plaintiff attorneys 88.6 percent of thetime. Theyalso reportedfewer than 15 different attorneys as defendant attorneys 87.6 percent of the time. Circuit judges reported contacts with more attorneys. Nearly half of them (46.4 percent) saw more than 30 different plaintiff attorneys and 29.3 percent saw more than 30 different defense attorneys in their most recent 50 civil cases. However, the number of lawyers appearing before West Virginia's circuit courts is low when compared with national averages (Ryan et al. 1980).

In criminal cases, circuit judges and magistrates see the same prosecuting attorney or assistant prosecuting attorney in case after case. Only 165 full- and part-time prosecuting attorneys and assistants serve the 31 circuits and 55 magistrate courts.

County prosecuting attorneys operate in an isolated environment. Theircriminal practice is not regulated by any agency or individual except the circuit judge. There are no statewide standards foroperating procedures or documentation practices. Prosecuting attorneys have no institutionalized methodof communicating with prosecuting attorneys in other counties. Moreover, although it is currently being challenged, West Virginia law permits individuals, by requesting a warrant or a summons from a magistrate, to initiate criminal legal prosecutions without prosecutorial intervention. Thus, prosecuting attorneys cannot fully control the criminal docket in their county. The degree of isolation and independence of West Virginia's prosecuting attorneys and the extent of public involvement in criminal prosecution in West Virginia is unusual in the United States (Eisenstein and Jacob 1977).

The public defender system is a new feature of the court system. Currently, criminal defense counsel for indigent persons is provided by one of 32 public defenders assigned to 11 judicial circuits, or by an attorney appointed by the circuit judge. Seven of the 32 public defenders currently serve in Kanawha County. Only three public defender offices operated prior to 1990 and the establishment of a branch of this system in all circuits remains incomplete. In FY 1991, public defenders appeared in roughly 4 percent of nontraffic criminal cases heard by circuit and magistrate courts, and roughly 15 percent of all cases where counsel was appointed for indigent persons.

The public defender system is directed by the state's Public Defender Services Office. It publishes a Criminal LawDigest, sponsors training seminars forthe defense bar and other criminal court participants, manages the finances of all defense services, and provides limited appellate defense services for indigent persons upon request. It has one attorney for indigent appeals. The oversight of each circuit's defender services remains partially in the hands of its Public Defender Corporation board. The selection of appointed defense counsel and control of its services remains with the circuit judges. However, the Public Defenders Services Office compensates and audits the expenses of appointed counsel. The current payment rate is $45 per hourforoff ice work and $65 per hourfor court time to a maximum of $3,000 per case.

Lawyer Quality

The survey asked West Virginia's circuit judges to rate the quality of the lawyers in their circuit. The circuit judges rated 63.5 percent of the lawyers as excellent or above average in their ability to prepare documents for the court. More than half of the lawyers (53.7 percent) were rated excellent or above average for case preparation and case

management skills, 48.8 percent received excellent or above average ratings for settlement skills, and 65.8 percent received excellent or above average ratings for their trial skills. All three of these ratings were higher than the national averages (Ryan et al. 1980). Thus, when compared to other American judges, West Virginia's circuit judges are especially pleased with the trial, and to a lesser extent, the case preparation and management skills of the state's lawyers.

Overall, the data on court size, the size of the Bar, and judicial evaluations of attorneys and staff leaves the impressionof a small but cooperative setof courtroom work groups marked by a relatively high degree of mutual respect. At least from the judges'vantage point, most members of the work group are professionals who perform their tasks efficiently.

Daily Tasks

The survey asked judges and magistrates to estimate the time spent on various tasks during a typical work week. Although these estimates should be regarded with caution, they give some sense of the time devoted to various tasks and provide the basis for a comparison with national data. The median self-reported estimated time for judicial and magistrate activities is presented in Table 2.

In general, West Virginia circuit judges spend about the same amount of time on their various tasks during the work week as do judges in other states (Ryan et al. 1980). A possible caveat is that West Virginia's circuit judges might spend less time presiding at trials than judges elsewhere in the nation. Because of a lack of national data, it is impossible to compare the daily tasks of West Virginia magistrates to their full-time equivalents in other states.

The survey suggests that most circuit judges like the mix of work on their schedule. When asked to indicate the variety of issues in their caseload on a seven-point scale from too little to too much variety, 75.6 percent selected the mid-point on the scale. Nationally, only 62 percent of judges chose the mid-point figure (Ryan et al. 1980). When asked about control over their work time, 58.5 percent of West Virginia's judges indicated full or nearly full control of their work time, and 34.3 percent indicated at least some control. This was higher than the national averages (Ryan et al. 1980).

West Virginia's judges were also asked to rate the amount of pressure they were under to move cases. They were offered a seven-point scale, ranging from too little pressure to too much pressure. Only 24.4 percent of the judges indicated that they were under too much pressure to move cases, and 65.9 percent indicated that they were under about the right amount of pressure to move cases. Nationally, 31.8 percent of judges perceived too much pressure, and 64.7 percent adopted more moderate positions (Ryan et al. 1980).

Most of the judges indicated that new court rules requiring speedier processing of cases (effective in July, 1992) will increase the pressure to move cases. Slightly more than half (53.7 percent) expect more or much more pressure to process cases, while 41.5 percent anticipate no change.

Magistrates also indicated satisfaction with the variety of cases before them. The vast majority of magistrates (81.9 percent) indicated positions between too little and too much variety. They also considered themselves in control of their work time. Two-thirds of them (66.6 percent) selected a scale position (6-7) indicating full or nearly full control of their work time. They also indicated that they did not feel pressured to move cases. Only 23.8 percent of the magistrates indicated that there was too little pressure to expedite docketed cases (scale positions 1-2) and 56.1 percent indicated between too little and too much pressure.

Most of the cases before circuit judges and magistrates do not go to trial. Only 3.7 percent of the 57,509 adjudged cases in circuit courtwere disposed of by either a bench trial (2 percent) or by a jury trial (1.7 percent) in FY 1991 (cases pending are excluded from this analysis). Benchtrialswere used in 1.1 percent of civil cases, 4.9 percent of criminal cases, and 5.7 percent of juvenile cases. Jury trials were used in 1.2 percent of civil cases, 6.9 percent of criminal cases, and 0.2 percent of juvenile cases. Clearly, trial was a more common option in criminal cases. However, the rate of trial dispositions varied widely f rorn circuit to circuit in FY 1991. Six circuits had no civil bench trials, 21 circuits had no criminal bench trials, and 23 circuits had no juvenile bench trials. Six of the circuits had no bench trials at all during the year. In contrast, the third circuit (Doddridge, Pleasants, and Ritchie counties) disposed of 27 percent of civil cases, 44.8 percent of criminal cases, 30.6 percent of juvenile cases, and 29.1 percent of all of its cases by bench trial.

The circuit's caseload is unrelated to the disposition choice. This suggests that local judges or the local legal culture is determining the incidence of trials. The use of trials is not determined by the workload of the courts. Despite the variance in the number of trial dispositions per judge, circuit judges did not f requently preside ordecide at trials with even minor policy enforcement implications. In FY 1991, the average circuit court judge sat in 36.9 trials leading to a verdict, including 17.4 trials before a jury and 19.5 bench trials, and disposed of a total of 958.5 cases.

Data from the Administrative Office for FY 1991 indicate that magistrate courts made justO.1 percentof their319,314 dispositions by jury trial (365) and just 10 percent by bench trial (31,901). The number of bench trials as a percentage of total dispositions variedwidely, from 0 percent in Calhoun County to 61.8 percent in Lewis County. Magistrates held very few jury trials, from 0 in Barbour, Brooke, Lewis, Lincoln, Pendleton, and Randolph counties to a maximum of 33 trials in Harrison County. The average magistrate sat on 204.5 benchtrials and 2.3jury trials, disposing of 2,046.9 cases in FY 1991. Like the circuit courts, the magistrates are expeditiously processing cases. The choice of trial appears to be unrelated to the workload of the court or case delay problems.

The survey included specific questions concerning personal injury automobile accident cases and aggravated (armed) robbery. Circuit judges reported it took a median time of 12.5 hours to try, from jury selection to verdict, a personal injury automobile accident case and a median time of 16 hours to try an aggravated (armed) robbery. These figures are near the national norm for rural and southern states (Ryan et al. 1980).

Magistrates reported that a typical nonjury debt collection case took a median time of one hour and a typical nonjury driving under the influence of alcohol case took a median time of two hours. National figures for comparative purposes are not available.

The survey asked specific questions concerning the circuit judges' and magistrates' approach to trials and settlements. In most categories, the judges and magistrates differed minimally on their approach to trials. Most reported taking extensive notes, engaging in limited questioning of witnesses, and making few interruptions of counsel's arguments to expedite matters orto clarify issues. The largest difference was in the expedition of testimony. Circuit judges were more likely than magistrates to encourage counsel in chambers and in courtto expedite testimony. Because most magistrate court trials are brief, it is likely that the magistrates sensed no need to encourage expeditious inquiry.

Although West Virginia's rules of criminal procedure prohibit judicial participation in plea bargaining, 26.8 percent of the circuit judges and 11.4 percent of the magistrates reported that they "occasionally participate in plea negotiation discussions." Obeying the court rule, 73.2 percent of West Virginia's judges and 81.9 percent of magistrates reported that they only ratified in open court the plea bargains arranged outside their presence. Nationally, when rules against judicial participation plea bargaining exist in a jurisdiction, 87 percent of the judges only ratify plea agreements (Ryan et al. 1980). Another 6.7 percent of West Virginia magistrates attended plea negotiation discussions but did not participate in them.

Sixty-six percent of circuitiudges indicated thatthetypical technique in civil settlement conferences is to intervene subtly and offer suggestions, 24.4 percent did not participate in settlement conferences or found them to be inappropriate, and 4.9 percent adopted an aggressive posture and used direct pressure on counsel.

The survey also asked magistrates and circuit judges to evaluate themselves. West Virginia's circu it judges evaluate their skills somewhat more negatively than the national sample of judges and somewhat more negatively than West Virginia's magistrates. Indeed, not one of 105 magistrates evaluated themselves below average or poor in any of the three categories of skills about which they were questioned. Negotiation was the one area in which the circuit judges marked their skill less strongly overall and consistently lower than the national sample of judges.

Community Relations

Judges are significant publicfigures in their communities. However, only 58.5 percent of the judges and 43.8 percent of the magistrates reported extensive newspaper coverage of their courts. They also reported relatively few court watcher projects sponsored by community interest groups (none for the judges and only 8.8 percent for magistrates) and few college or university research projects about their courts (only 12.2 percent of judges and 16.2 percent of magistrates). However, 70.7 percent of circuit judges and 36.2 percent of magistrates reported occasional visits by public school students.

Because of the prestige of their off ice and, often, their own desire to establish contacts with community leaders and voters, circuit judges and magistrates must associate with the public beyond the confines of their official contacts. As shown on Table 4, most of the judges and magistrates spend between 1 and 8 hours per month on community relations activities. Only small percentage differences (less than 5 percent) separate the time devoted to community relations by West Virginia's circuit judges and magistrates from the national averages.

Judges also have an opportunity to devote time to professional bar associations. However, 46.3 percent of the judges reported they devoted no time and 39 percent devoted only one or two hours a month to organized Bar activities, As attorneys, judges must be members of the West Virginia State Bar. However, only six claimed membership in the American Bar Association. Twentyseven said that they belonged to a county or city bar association, reflecting the local orientation of their associations.

The Disposition Of Cases

Between 1978 and 1991 both the circuit and magistrate courts experienced a significant increase in case dispositions. Circuit court civil dispositions increased from 34,838 in 1978 to 46,810 in FY 1990-91. Magistrate court civil dispositions increased from 38,524 in 1978 to 45,460 in FY 1990-91.

The increase in cases was also noticeable in the criminal category, especially in the magistrate courts where statutes redefined some traffic offenses involving alcohol use as crimes. The number of criminal cases in the circuit courts increased from 6,178 in 1978to 6,897 cases in FY 1990-91. The numberof criminal dispositions inthe magistrate courts increased from 100,893 in 1978 to 135,910 in FY 1990-91.

Despite the increase in the number of cases, West Virginia's courts did not dispose of many cases by a formal trial. As previously noted, trials are a rare occurrence. Most cases ended with a disposition arranged by the parties, including 96.3 percent of the cases filed in the circuit courts and 89.9 percent of the cases filed with magistrates.

Most criminal cases are bargained to a guilty plea by prosecutors. Also, many civil cases are settled by negotiations between the parties and many cases are not pursued by the parties. Moreover, many cases are dismissed by judges and magistrates. Magistrates indicated that they dismissed a median of 10 percent of their cases. Thus, the attritionof cases is enormous. For example, most small civil claims filed in FY 1991 were disposed of without a trial (37,092 cases or 81.6 percent of 45,460 claims). Of the 8,368 civil small claims that were tried in magistrate court, only 659 (7.9 percent) were appealed to circuit court, and, of these, only 66 cases resulted in circuit court trials. Consequently, magistrates and circuit judges have relatively limited opportunity to enforce, adjust, orinnovate local legal policy. They primarily manage the routine disposition of co nf licts.

The Family Law Master System

As noted previously, the legislature created the West Virginia family law master system in response to federal legislation. The 22 family law masters currently act as agents of the circuit court judges, even though they are gubernatorial appointees. They serve as part-time judicial off icersandare referred mattersaff ecting the assignment of child custody and disputes about child custody, child visitation rights, child support payments, and paternity. All masters are attorneys, but they do not have to have experience in family law or long service at the Bar. They receive limited yearly training from a supervisor in the Administrative Office, but they are free to adopt local rules of practice and documentation within the confines of the law. They

often operate in less than satisfactory facilities and have only a part-time assistant.

Sincefamily law master districts do not often correspond to the boundaries of circuit courts, the masters often serve under the jurisdiction of two or three chief circuit judges. Circuit judges can, upon motion, revoke the referral of a case to a master.

The family law masters frequently contact Child Advocates, the child support enforcement arm of the state's Department of Health and Human Resources. Child Advocates offers alternative mediation and counseling, so parties can avoid taking post-divorce or other child support matters to the family law master; enforces and collects child support and medical support obligations; and establishes the paternity of illegitimate children. These functions are performed both for welfare recipients (to offset the cost of AFDC [childwelfare] payments underwhat is called the "IVD" program) and, in a more limited fashion, forother parties (Policy Studies, Inc. 1991 a).

Afamily law case starts with a filing of a claim for divorce, child custody, and/or child support with the Clerk of the Circuit Court. Parties can do this with a private attorney, through the local child advocate who handles the documents and fees, or pro se (for themselves) with the assistance of materials provided by the Clerk. After process is servedonthe defendant,the attorney, child advocate, orthe party must secure a hearing date with the master.

Family law masters hold hearings, on the record, that employ an adversarial, due process mode of procedure. Since the Supreme Court of Appeals has not established procedural rules for their courts (rules are now under consideration), there is wide variation in the formality of the procedures and practices employed. Some family law masters conduct hearings with less of the formality of a trial and more like a settlement conference. Most hearings are brief and rarely take more than one hour. Masters average about 110 hearings a month. The masters' schedules are flexible, allowing them to address emergency situations when necessary. The time spent on what is officially a parttime job often approaches full-time standards.

Family law masters possess subpoena and contempt of courtpowers. Also, they often set aside specific periods for hearing cases presented by the child advocate. Because of their busy schedules, routine cases often wait a month to two months after filing for a hearing date. Afterahearing, the master normally advises counsel or the child advocate to draft an order consistent with the master's findings. The draft order, due in 10 days, is reviewed, modified if necessary, and sent to the parties for review and the filing of possible objections. After 10 more days the recommended order is sent to the circuit judge for review, possible modification, and final approval.

Circuit judges can cite a party for contempt of family law masters, procedural rules, and final orders. Objections to the order from a party very rarely result in a hearing before thecircuitjudge but, regardless, the family lawmastermight not be informed of any objections filed with the judge. Salient information in the order is recorded into a computerized network of child support and custody information to assist Child Advocates' enforcement of support orders (Policy Studies, Inc. 1991b).

There has been a marked increase in domestic relations issues before family law masters -from 7,846 dispositions in calendar year 1987 to 15,722 dispositions in FY 1991. Statewide, domestic relations cases accounted for 26.1 percent of the circuit court docket in FY 1991, but these cases mostly absorbed family law master time. Familylaw masters each disposed of a mean of 715 cases in FY 1991. However, this probably underestimates their workload because many hearings consider modification or enforcement of previous dispositions. No record of the number of hearings, the number of cases referred to circuit judges for action, or the form of circuit judge action exists.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Judges and magistrates were asked to list in order of importance up to five changes that they would like to see made in any aspect of West Virginia's judicial operations or law. The result was a plethora of both specific and general recommendations. To assess the level of interest in the recommended reforms, the authors assigned a weight of 5 to the recommendation that the respondent listed as most important, 4 to the next listed reform, and so forth. The number of times a reform appeared at a rank on the listwas multiplied by the weight assigned to that rank. Then all numbers for each given reform at each rank were added together to produce a scale score for that reform. The topfive scale scores of reforms indicted bycircuit judges and magistrates.

Magistrates are particularly dissatisfied with their salaries. Circuit judges were most dissatisfied with the level of staff support.

When asked to evaluate if they were underpaid or overpaid on a seven-point scale, 69.5 percent of the magistrates adopted scale positions (1 -2) at the underpaid end of the scale while only 3.9 percent adopted scale positions (6-7) at the overpaid end. Circuit judges also expressed dissatisfaction with their salaries. Nearly half (46.4 percent) of the circuit judges adopted positions at the underpaid end of the scale and only 2.4 percent selected positions at the overpaid end. This is near the national average for circuit judges. In 1977,45.8 percent of judges nationwide selected the underpaid scale positions (Ryan et al. 1980).

Because judicial salaries in West Virginia rank in the bottom quarter nationally, and well below the national mean, the complaints concerning salaries are justified. The magistrates' complaint is especially justified since their salaries are below the national average family income and their job carries with it considerable legal and political importance.

The complaint concerning staff resources is also justified. On a percapita basis, West Virginia devotesthe fewest dollars of all states toward its judiciary (U.S. Dept. of Justice 1988). About 83 percent of the $34 million the courts will receive from the state during FY 1992 will be spent on salaries, fringe benefits, and retirement expenses. Unfortunateiy, this funding level leads to a compensation package for supporting staff that is severely below regional market rates. Also, nonpersonnel court expenditures have not kept pace with inflation.

Compared to other state court systems, such as Michigan's, West Virginia lacks administrators and automated caseflow and records management to expedite business in its busiest circuit and magistrate courts. The state judiciary also lacks electronic mail to facilitate communications among the members of courtroom work groups, administration, and recordsoff iceswhichare spread across multiple locations in many multi-county circuits. It also lacks law clerks to facilitate docket management and legal research. Thus, although the Supreme Court of Appeals has engaged in an innovative, top-down management of the judiciary during the past quarter century, the state should invest in additional administrative efficiencies in the judicial branch.

Additional changes requiring less substantial appropriations are also advisable. First, despite eff orts to professionalize the judiciary, West Virginia has been slow to adopt alternative dispute resolution techniques, such as courtordered arbitration or mediation of suits. Some state executive agencies and the child advocates practice alternative dispute resolution, but there are no organized private dispute resolution services for family law, bad debts, or neighborhood disputes. The result is that civil disputants must either bear the costs of using the formal judicial institutions or fail to obtain relief. West Virginia should consider alternative dispute resolution as a means of reducing court costs or litigant expenses, whether judicially supervised or operated by an independent agency or agencies, as in Massachusetts.

Second, various state organizations and external evaluators have recommended changes in the family law master system, including full-time family law masters, the adjustment of regions of service to correspond to circuit boundaries, a centralized source of funds, more extensive and more frequent training opportunities, greater independence in the issuance of orders and decrees, and the establishment of procedural rules and performance standards by Supreme Court of Appeals through the Administrative Office (McHugh 1992). These changes, several of which demand only small amounts of resources, should make the family law master system function more like a court, which is what its duties demand.

Third, a variety of judicial selection and judicial performance evaluation schemes exist. The state legislature should consider which process of selection and performance evaluation is best suited to providing a representative and professionally excellent state judiciary (Wice 1991). The survey indicated that some judges and magistrates would like to see a less partisan mode of judicial selection. Little discussion of on going judicial performance evaluation has yet to occur in the state. These issues should be on the legislative agenda.

In summary, West Virginia has a judiciary that operates much like other state judiciaries around the nation. Insome respects, for example magistrate training, West Virginia is ahead of national professional criteria used to rate judicial branch operations. A greater legislative commitment to adequately fund the judicial branch, expand support services, improve family law master operations, and ensure the selection of a quality judiciary should further improve this vital public service.

The Institute for Public Affairs and the Department of Political Science at West Virginia University conducted a telephone survey of 517 randomly selected West Virginia residents in June 1992. The survey was designed to determine West Virginians' knowledge of and interest in West Virginia's politics and government, their opinions concerning the performance of West Virginia's elected officials, and their triist in government. They were also asked to identify the most important issues facing the state and which level of government they thought was best suited to deal with these issues. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percent.

The survey revealed that West Virginians have a relatively low opinion of their state and local governments'job performance. They believe that West Virginia's state legislature is controlled by special interest groups, that government is not run forthe benefit of the people, and that their elected officials cannot be trusted to do what is right. These negative evaluations of the state's political institutions raise serious questions concerning the legitimacy of West Virginia's political system.

Knowledge of and Interest in West Virginia's Politics and Government

A representative democracy presupposes that the public pays at least some attention to political events. If the public ignores political events entirely it cannot make informed choices on election day. This, in turn, strains the connection between the governed and their elected officials and raises serious questions concerning the political system's legitimacy (Thompson 1970).

In an effort to determine the extent to which West Virginians pay attention to West Virginia's political affairs, the survey asked: "Would you say that you follow what is going on in West Virginia's government and public affairs most of the time, some of the time, or hardly at all." Nearly all of the respondents indicated that they followed what was going on either some of the time (46.2 percent) or most of the time (44.7 percent). Only 7.7 percent indicated that they hardly paid any attention at all to West Virginia's government and public affairs. The remaining 1.4 percent did not answer the question.

Since the survey was taken shortly after the 1992 primaries the percentage of the respondents who indicated that they follow West Virginia's government and public affairs some or most of the time may be somewhat higher than normal. However, the responses do suggest that most WestVirginians payat least some attention to West Virginia's government and public affairs. This, in turn, suggests that most West Virginians pay enough attention to political events to make at least partially informed choices on election day.

There were several statistically significant variations in who pays attention to the state's governmental affairs.' West Virginians with at least some college education are generally more attentive to West Virginia's governmental affairs than those who have not attended college. Also, West Virginians over 60 years old are more attentive to West Virginia's governmental affairs than those aged46-59 and they, in turn, are more attentive than those aged 32-45 and 18-31. Also, individuals whose family incomes are above $30,000tend to pay more aftentionto West Virginia's governmental affairs than those with lower incomes, and men tend to pay more attention than women.

The survey also tested West Virginia residents'ability to correctly name the governor, the speaker of the West Virginia House of Delegates, and the president of the State Senate without any assistance from the interviewer. Nationally, approximately 90 percent of state residents are able to correctly name theirgovernor and approximately 10 percent can correctly name their state legislative leaders (Blair 1988).

Ninety-two percent of the respondents correctly named Gaston Caperton as West Virginia's governor, 13.7 percent correctly named Robert "Chuck" Chambers as the speaker of the West Virginia House of Delegates, and 7.4 percent correctly named Keith Burdette as the president of West Virginia's State Senate.

The Performance of West Virginia's Elected Officials

West Virginia's residents were asked to rate the job performance of the governor, state legislature, statejudges, and local government off icials as either excellent, good, f air, or poor. As indicated in Table 1, most West Virginians rated the performance of the governor and the state legislature as either fair or poor; and the performance of state judges and local government off icials as either fair or good. Although state judges and local government officials received a slightly better job rating than the governor and the state legislature, relatively few West Virginians rated any of their political institutions as doing an excellent job. Predictably, Democrats were more likely than Independents and Republicans to rate Democratic Governor Gaston Caperton's job performance as either good or excellent. Aboutoneout of every three Democrats (34.6 percent) gave him an excellent or good rating compared with 18.9 percent of the Independents and 14.7 percent of the Republicans. Also, Democrats were much less likely to give the governor a poor job performance rating than Independents and Republicans. Only 19.5 percent of the Democrats rated the governor's job performance as poor, compared with 33.3 percent of the Independents and 33.3 percent of the Republicans.

The governor's job performance rating was also significantly related to age and education. Respondents overage 45 were more likely than respondents under age 45 to rate the governor's job performance as either good or excellent.

Respondents without a college education were more likely than those who had attended college to rate the governor's job performance as either excellent or good.

The statistical analysis of the respondents'views on the state legislature's job performance revealed that West Virginians who pay very little attention to West Virginia's governmental affairs have a much more negative perception of the state legislature's job performance than those who pay at least some attention to West Virginia's governmental affairs. One possible explanation for the state legislature's relatively low job performance ratings from those who do not follow West Virginia's governmental affairs is that those respondents are politically alienated from both politics and politicians. Since they tend to ignore political events and activities, they have no experience to convince them that their alienation from both politics and politicians is not justified and should be changed. However, 29.7 percent of the most attentive group also rated the state legislature's performance as poor. This suggests that knowledge of the state legislature's activities does not necessarily lead to a higher opinion of their job performance.

Women have a higher opinion of the state legislature's job performance than men. Only 12.4 percent of the men rated the state legislature's job performance as either good or excellent, compared with 21.4 percent of the women. Also, lifelong state residents gave the legislature higher ratings than those who had lived outside the state. One possible explanation for this diff erence is that respondents who had lived outside of the state were able to compare the legislature's job performance with the performance of other state legislatures. Apparently, they concluded that West Virginia's state legislature's job performance was less satisfactory than the job performance they had observed in other states.

West Virginia courts'job performance ratings were sig_ nificantly related to gender. Women were much less likely than men to give the state courts an excellent or good job performance rating. Only 23 percent of women, compared with 30.5 percent of men, rated the courts'job performance as either good or excellent. One possible explanation for this difference is that women perceive the courts as being less receptive to females, especially in the family law issues which are most frequently brought by female litigants.

West Virginia local govemments'job performance ratingswere related significantly to the respondents'attentiveness to West Virginia's governmental affairs. Those who pay a great deal of attention to state governmental affairs were much more likely than those who hardly pay any attention to rate their local government's job performance as either good or excellent. However, the most attentive group also gave local governments more poor ratings (16.5 percent) than the sometimes attentive (7.5 percent) and the least attentive (10 percent). This follows the pattern seen with the respondents' evaluations of the state legislature's job performance. Those who pay the greatest attention to West Virginia's governmental affairs tend to break into two groups, one that is generally positive and another that is generally critical of the state's political institutions.

Trust In Government

Most Americans have limited confidence in the federal government to do what is right. In 1990, a national survey revealed that only 2.9 percent of Americans trusted the federal government to do what is right about all of the time and only 24.7 percent trusted the federal government to do what is right most of the time. Most Americans (67.9 percent) said they could trust the federal government some of the time, and 2.2 percent said they could never trust the federal government (2.3 percent did not respond) (Miller, Kinder, and Rosenstone 1992).

The West Virginia survey revealed that West Virginians have relatively little confidence in their state government to do what is right. As in the national survey, West Virginians were asked to indicate how often they could trust West Virginia's state government to do what is right: just about always, most of the time, some of the time, or almost never. Only 2.5 percent of the respondents indicated that they could trust West Virginia's state government to do what is right just about always, and only 16.2 percent indicated most of the time. Most West Virginians indicated that they could trust their state government to do what is right some of the time (53.8 percent) and 24.8 percent said almost never. The remainder (2.7 percent) did not respond to the question. These responses suggest that (1) West Virginians generally do nottrusttheir state governmeritto dowhat is right and (2) they have less trust in their state government than Americans have in the federal government.

Predictably, Democrats trusted West Virginia's state government more than Republicans and Independents. Given the Democratic control of all three branches of state government, this is not surprising. Trust in state government was also significantly related to attentiveness to state politics and governmental affairs. Once-again, those who pay the most attention to state politics were split into two groups, one that trusts the state government and another that does not trust the state government. Also, those who pay hardly any attention to state politics and governmental affairs indicated that they almost never trust state government.

The survey also revealed that West Virginians have relatively little confidence in their local government officials to do what is right. Although local government officials feared somewhat better than state government officials, only 3.9 percent of the respondents trust local government off icials to do what is right just about always, and only 15.5 percent indicated most of the time. Most West Virginians indicated that they trust their local government officials to do what is right some of the time (52.2 percent) and 16.6 percent said almost never. The remainder (1.7 percent) did not respond to the question.

West Virginia's Republicans had significantly greater trust in local government than West Virginia's Democrats or Independents. This is not surprising given the Republican party's belief in decentralized government and the Democratic party's control of the state legislature andthe governor's office. Also, West Virginia's lifelong residents had significantly greater trust in local government than those who had lived outside of the state. One possible explanation for this is that people who had lived outside of the state may have learned to expect more services from their local government. West Virginia's local governments, unlike most others across the country, do not have the authority to impose local sales or income taxes and their ability to generate property tax revenue is limited by provisions in the state's constitution and by state statutes (Colyer and Ferrise 1991; White 1991). As a result, West Virginia's local governments generally provide fewer services than local governments in other states.

The public's general skepticism about governmental performance in West Virginia is reflected in their attitudes concerning honesty in government. When asked, "Do you think that West Virginia's state governmental officials are very honest, honest, dishonest, or very dishonest?", only 1.7 percent said very honest. Most of the respondents (54.2 percent) said honest, 27.9 percent said dishonest, and 5.6 said very dishonest (110.6 percent did not respond).

Women were more likely than men to consider state government off icials as being either very honest or honest. Also, those who pay little attention to West Virginia's governmental affairs were more likely to consider state officials to be either dishonest or very dishonest than those who follow West Virginia's governmental aff airs at least some of the time. Apparently, the politically alienated (those who hardly everpay any aftentionto West Virginia's governmental affairs) have a strong skepticism concerning state officials' honesty and their avoidance of political affairs does little to change their minds. Also, once again, those who are very attentive to West Virginia's governmental affairs split into two groups, one that considered state officials to be honest and another that considered state officials to be dishonest.

Despite some skepticism about state government officials' honesty, West Virginians do not view them as being much different in their honesty than off icials in other states. When asked to compare the honesty of West Virginia's state governmental officials with those in other states, 0.6 percent said West Virginia officialswere much more honest, 8.1 percent indicated somewhat more honest, 72.3 percent said about the same in honesty, 9.5 percent said less honest, and 2.1 percent selected much less honest (7.4 percent did not respond).

Respondents who had lived outside the state were more likely to choose less honest or much less honest than respondents who had only lived in West Virginia. This suggests that respondents who, presumably, are in a better position to compare West Virginia state government officials'honesty to others tend to see West Virginia's officials as being less honest than state officials elsewhere.

Influence over Government

West Virginians' lack of trust in the state's political institutions was reflected in the responses to the question, "Would you say that West Virginia's government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves or that it is run for the benefit of the people?" More than three-quarters of the respondents (77 percent) indicated that West Virginia's government was pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves. Only 16 percent of the respondents indicated that it was run for the benefit of the people. Seven percent of the respondents did not answer the question. Women were more likely than men to see government as being run for the benefit of the people.

In 1990, a national survey asked a similarquestion about the federal government. Seventy percent of the respondents said that government was run by a few big interests, and 23 percent said for the benefit of the people (Miller, Kinder, and Rosenstone 1992).

The West Virginia survey also asked, "Who hasthe most influence on your state legislators in Charleston?" Respondents could choose from among the governor and his staff, special interest lobbyists, the media, the voters who elected him or her, and other legislators. More than one out of every three respondents indicated special interest lobbyists (34.6 percent), followed by the governor and his staff (20.1 percent), the media (13.2 percent), the voters who elected him or her (11.6 percent), and other legislators (110.6 percent) (9.9 percent did not respond to the question).

Respondents with a college education were more likely than those without a college education to say that special interest groups had the most influence over the state legislature. Sixty-six percent of West Virginians with a graduate degree, 58 percent of those with a college degree, 39 percent of those who attended college but did not graduate, 29 percent of high school graduates, and 25 percent of those who did not graduate from high school indicated that special interest groups have the most influence on their state legislature. This suggests that West Virginians, especially college-educated West Virginians, generally view the state legislature as being dominated by special interests and political insiders.

The responses to this question were also associated significantly with age, attentiveness to state politics, and whether the respondent had ever lived outside of West Virginia. West Virginians overthe age of 45 were more likely than those under 45 to view West Virginia's state legislators as being under the influence of special interests. West Virginians who pay a great deal of attention to the state's governmental aff airs were more likely than others to consider West Virginia's legislators to be underthe influence of special interests. Finally, respondents who had previously resided outside of the state were more likely than lifelong residents to say that special interest groups had the most influence over the state legislature.

The Most Important Issues Facing the State

When the surveywas taken West Virginia had one of the highest unemployment rates and one of the lowest labor participation rates in the nation. As a result, it was not surprising to f ind that in 1992 more than half of the respondents to the survey (54.7 percent) indicated that the state's economy and lack of jobs (combined into one category) was the most important problem facing West Virginia's government. Education (6.6 percent) and state finances (5.6 percent) were the next most frequently cited issues of concern. Other issues of major concern were government leadership/integrity and health care.

Respondents who followed West Virginia's governmental aff airs some of the time were more likely than others to identify the economy and jobs as the single most important issue facing the state. The most attentive citizens were more likely to see education policy, governmental integrity, or state finances as the major problem confronting state government. Respondents who hardly ever follow West Virginia's governmental aff airs were more likely to say that high taxes was the state's most important problem.

Respondents that had not attended college were more likely than those with a college education to name the economy and jobs as the most important issue facing the state. Also, women were more likely than men to cite the economy and jobs as being the most important problem facing the state.

There were some significant regional variations in the responses to this question. Although the economy and lack of jobs was the most frequently cited major problem facing the state in all regions in the state, respondents in the eastern panhandle and in the Huntington-Charleston region were less likely than the others to name the economy and lack of jobs as the major problem facing the state. Only 47.8 percent of the respondents in the eastern panhandle (Berkeley, Grant, Hampshire, Hardy, Jefferson, Mineral, Morgan, and Pendleton counties) and 53.8 percent of the respondents in the metropolitan Charleston-Huntington region (Cabell, Kanawha, Mason, Putnam, and Wayne counties) namedthe economy and lackof jobs asthe major problem facing the state. This was far less than the 68 . 4 percent of respondents in central West Virginia (Braxton, Clay, Nicholas, and Webster counties) and 74.4 percent in southeastern West Virginia (Greenbrier, Mercer, Monroe, Pocahontas, and Summers counties) who identified the economy and lackof jobs asthe major problem facing state government.

The issue identified as the second most important problem facing the state also varied by region. Education was second in the Monongahela Basin (Barbour, Harrison ' Lewis, Marion, Monongalia, Preston, Randolph, Tucker, and Upshur counties), the northern panhandle (Brooke, Hancock, Marshall, Ohio, and Wetzel counties), and in west central West Virginia (Calhoun, Doddridge, Gilmer, Jackson, Pleasants, Ritchie, Roane, Tyler, Wirt, and Wood counties). State fiscal policy was second in the eastern panhandle. Government integrity and leadership was second in the Charleston-Huntington region. Health care was second in southern West Virginia (Boone, Fayette, Lincoln, Logan, McDowell, Mingo, Raleigh, and Wyoming counties). High taxes was second in central West Virginia. Finally, respondents in the southeastern region of the statewere so overwhelmingly convinced that the economy and lack of jobs wasthe most important problem facing the state that no other problem received more than 5 percent of the total number of responses in that region.

When respondents indicated that the economy and the lack of jobs was the most important problem facing the state, they most frequently cited education policy as the second most important problem facing the state. This pattern was followed in all regions. When respondents did not cite the economy and lack of jobs as the major problem facing the state, the economy and lack of jobs was most frequently mentioned as the second most important problem facing the state. This was true for respondents in all of the state's regions except west central West Virginia and the northern panhandle. Respondents there did not cite enough second-most-important problems to establish a statistically significant second choice.

Which Level of Government?

The United States Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) conducts a national survey each year to determine public attitudes toward government performance and taxes. In their most recent poll, theAmerican people indicated that they have ageneral skepticism about performance at all levels of government. However, when they were forced to choose which level of government they were most satisfiedwith, they picked local governments (Marbach 1991).

The West Virginia survey included a series of questions that were designed to determine how West Virginians feel about their state and local governments'job performance. The survey results suggest that West Virginians, like most other Americans, are somewhat skeptical about governmental performance. However, unlike most Americans, WestVirginians have moreconfidence intheirstate government than in eitherthe federal government or local govemment.

Whenasked "What level of government, federal, state, or local, is best suited to solve West Virginia's economic problems and provide jobs?" more than half (56.7 percent) chose state government. Only 14.3 percent chose the federal government, and 11.6 percent chose local government (17.4 percent did not respond to the question).

When West Virginians were asked"What levelof government, federal, state, or local, is best suited to improve education in West Virginia?" most of the respondents picked state government (61.7 percent), followed by local government (17 percent) and thefederal government (10.3 percent). Eleven percent of the respondents did not answer the question.

Finally, the survey asked West Virginians "What level of government, federal, state, or local, is best suited to improve the environment and provide clean air and water in West Virginia?" Despite the federal governments' efforts through the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act to take the leading role in environmental issues, the most frequent response was state government (43.9 percent), followed by the federal government (33.5 percent) and local govern

ment (8.1 percent). The remaining 14.5 percent of the respondents did not answer this question.

Conclusions

The public's commitment to the legitimacy of West Virginia's state and local government does not run exceptionally deep. Their evaluations of West Virginia's state and local government officials' job performance are not high. Moreover, they are convinced that the state legislature is controlled by special interest groups, that the state's political institutions are run by a few big interests looking out for themselves and not for the benefit of the people, and that government cannot be trusted to do what is right.

West Virginia's citizens who pay relatively little attention to West Virginia's governmental affairs might be expected to hold such negative views of their government because of their general alienation f rom politics. However, it is striking that many of the persons claiming to follow West Virginia's state and local politics most closely, and many of West Virginia's most educated citizens, are also convinced that West Virginia's state and local governments are captured by special interests, untrustworthy, and prone to official misconduct. Moreover, West Virginians who have lived in other states and, presumably, are in a better position to compare the behavior of West Virginia's state and local government officials with others are even more critical of West Virginia's state and local governments than lifelong residents.

Despite these negative evaluations, West Virginians believe that West Virginia's state government ought to take the lead in addressing the major public problems of ourtime. Despite the federal government's primary role in establishing monetary, fiscal, international, economic, and environmental policies, most West Virginians want the state government to assume leadership in addressing the state's

central problems of economic development and job creation. If West Virginia's state government fails to do so, the result could be even greater alienation from politics and further erosion of West Virginians' views concerning the legitimacy of state and local politics in West Virginia.