You likely will see some West Virginians file one or more lawsuits that challenge the legality of the state's multi-delegate districts. And members of both major parties could sign off on the suits.

An August filing of a lawsuit may create a little more pressure on state officials as they do their 10-year reapportionment. That's always a test in political creativity.

As a faithful observer of the state's political landscape for a quarter-century, I surmise that our preservation of multi-delegate districts is a disservice to those who want to elect the best possible candidates. We can do better, and perhaps the courts can provide some relief from a system that is absurd on its face.

Consider this: West Virginians depend on an uneven and unfair mechanism to seat the 100-member House of Delegates. How does this arrangement make sense?

• 36 one-delegate districts
• 11 two-delegate district
• six three-delegate district
• three four-delegate districts
• one five-delegate district
• one seven-delegate district

Perhaps some organizations -- chambers of commerce, professional groups, senior citizen groups, etc. -- will join the suit and help change what has produced some curious results.

I don't know anyone who is prepared to defend the representation in the House 30th Delegate District, which cuts through Kanawha County and includes Charleston. It is made up of seven Democrats, and five or six have to be considered liberal or worse.

Michael B. Stuart, a Charleston lawyer who ran unsuccessfully as a Republican in the House 30th Delegate District, has examined the multi-delegate phenomenon.

"I think at the end of the day multi-delegate districts are a disservice to the people of West Virginia," he said. "There are a lot of bad delegates serving in Charleston today as the result of multi-delegate districts."

Voters have a tough enough time focusing on the two candidates and their views. Throw a field of 10 or 14 candidates at them, and you have voting-booth overload.

Stuart, a candidate to serve as the state Republican Party chairman, sees multi-delegate districts skewing the candidate pool for conservative Democrats, too.

He makes a valid point. Candidates from multi-delegate districts do not have to be as accountable as those who serve in single-delegate or even two-delegate districts.

This will be a test for our political leaders.

* * *

An experienced attorney who keeps an eye on state legal proceedings believes a Florida case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court may shed some light on legal entanglements in West Virginia, particularly the state Department of Environmental Protection's attempt to keep mineral rights owners from developing natural gas under Chief Logan State Park.

The case is Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Here is one brief explanation of the case:

Stop the Beach claims the Florida DEP and others, in an effort to protect the shoreline, misused a state statute to unconstitutionally appropriate private beaches for public use without compensation.

Stop the Beach claims the Florida Supreme Court has violated the due process and takings clauses by depriving Stop the Beach of its private property without compensation.

Stop the Beach wants the U.S. Supreme Court to define "judicial takings" and address the problem of state courts redefining property rights so states do not have to compensate property owners.

The state of Florida argues the private property owners were not denied access to the shore and suffered no loss and that the U.S. Supreme Court should avoid interfering in a state court's interpretation of state law.

There is more to the Florida case, but it is similar to the Chief Logan case in at least one way: A government entity has sought to deprive an owner of its private property without providing just compensation.

The attorney also saw a parallel with the Florida case and the way the federal government, through the U.S. EPA, is changing water-quality rules for surface mining.

"The issues in the Florida case are similar to those in the Chief Logan State Park case and nearly the same in the case of the EPA regulations, which are prohibiting (mountaintop removal mining), or nearly prohibiting it," he said.

"I think the argument that regulations which prevent recovery or use of property in the name of saving the environment constitute a taking without due process, and compensation is getting closer to becoming a viable legal position."

That's an interesting perspective, perhaps one the EPA did not find too concerning when it revised its interpretation of water quality standards for mining sites. And I suspect coal companies are wondering what effect new federal standards have on the value of their coal reserves.

As for Chief Logan, I cannot understand why the state DEP chose to pursue the case, which now is pending before the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. The state cannot afford to pay the Lawson heirs -- the rightful owners of the gas under the state park -- the just value of that gas.

Elsewhere in West Virginia, local government entities that own mineral rights under public lands are entering into agreements with energy companies to develop those gas reserves. They obviously are managing public assets in a way that benefits the public.

As finances become tighter, more public bodies will see the wisdom in developing the mineral rights they control as long as they can be sure they are not damaging the public's property.

Dan Page is editor and publisher of The State Journal. His e-mail address is dpage@statejournal.com.