The Governor's Podium: The Census Results

The results of the 2000 census are in, and as we expected, Oklahoma is one of 11 states which will lose at least one seat in Congress. We will go from six congressmen to five, seriously diminishing our influence in Washington.

Why did this happen? While Oklahoma grew about 10% between 1990 and 2000, most other states grew faster. Our slow growth has been a perennial problem since the 1930s. One reason for it -- a primary reason in my view -- is that state government has traditionally not been friendly to investment, business and jobs.

As you know, we have battled for several years over the issue of Right-to-Work. Simply put, a Right-to-Work law prohibits the forced union shop, which makes union membership or at least payment of union dues a requirement for a prospective employee. It does not forbid unions, and in fact, unions are strong in many states with Right-to-Work laws.

Lots of companies consider Right-to-Work a growth issue. They list the existence of a Right-to-Work law as a plus when they consider states where they might want to invest, adding jobs and prosperity.

So I thought it might be interesting to look at the states that gained or lost Congressional seats in the 2000 census, and see if there is any correlation with the existence of Right-to-Work. Sure enough, there is.

Of the 11 states that lost seats -- including Oklahoma -- only one, Mississippi, is a Right-to-Work state.

Of the eight states that gained seats, six have Right-to-Work.

No one says Right-to-Work is the sole make-or-break issue in growth and prosperity, but it's surely a factor. Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina and Nevada all gained seats in Congress this year, and they all have Right-to-Work laws. That's one of the things they are doing right to attract investment and jobs.

Last year, a measure to let you vote on Right-to-Work failed by a single vote in the State Senate. This year, I will again ask legislators to pass Right-to-Work or let you vote in it. Can we afford not to?