A commission of earnest citizens, most with backgrounds in the law, has produced a document demonstrating the complexities of governing.

Gov. Joe Manchin empowered the Independent Commission on Judicial Reform to evaluate and recommend proposals for judicial reform in West Virginia. Frankly, West Virginia's courts have a reputation that discourages investment, thus curbing employment opportunities here. It's hardly a secret.

The commission listened to the public, sifted through the rules governing our judiciary and offered some suggestions to bring the state's system more in line with those in other states.

Perhaps most significantly, the commission recommended establishing an intermediate appellate court that could hear cases that involve large punitive damage awards. The commission urged that "such a right be extended to all litigants either through legislative enactment or, if necessary, as part of the development of court rules and processes for the implementation of the intermediate court of appeals."

Parties in those cases want to know they will receive a full review of the particulars -- that the court has been thorough in its assessment of damages and assignment of responsibility for causing them. A note of caution: Not everyone will be comfortable with the cost of creating an intermediate appellate court.

The commission also suggested using an appointment system to fill the vacancies on the new intermediate court as a sort of test and "defer its final decision on the permanent method of judicial selection." In effect, the commission suggested that changing the state's partisan judicial elections to nonpartisan elections or perhaps merit selection should wait.

That may come as a disappointment to those who see the state's partisan judicial elections contributing to our judicial system's image, replete with politicking and deal cutting. Elections can be messy and expensive, and money can create distrust.

To address that issue, the commission suggested a public financing pilot program for one of the two 2012 campaigns for state Supreme Court of Appeals. A public campaign financing proposal emerged during the 2009 legislative session, but the governor asked its sponsor to withdraw it until the commission completed its work. That likely means we'll see some form of public campaign financing -- and the costs that go with it.

These are not simple issues. We must respect the state constitution, and the commission seems to have been careful to do that. But the reason for reform is clear: We can become more appealing to investment that creates prosperity for our citizens if our court system is perceived to be committed to the rule of law. Creating opportunity in a state that continues to underachieve is the goal. Getting there will take time and patience.