The Indiana General Assembly is comprised of he House of Representatives (100 members) and the Senate (50 members). Members of the House serve two-year terms. Members of the Senate serve four-year terms. Every two years all of the seats of the House and half of the seats of the Senate are on the ballot.

   That means all of the current members of the House and half of the members of the Senate (absent a member here or there who resigned because of scandal; such is politics) ran for her or his seat in the 2010 general elections.

   When did any of the candidates include in her or his campaign mention of so-called Riht to Work" legislation? The last time—and many of us sincerely hope this means the last time—Mitch Daniels ran for office, seeking re-election as Governor of Indiana, I do not remember his statement that Right to Work ("RTW") was the main issue he wanted to push. Realistically, he would have had a little more difficult time, and the National Republican Party might have been a bit miffed because such a call would have had even more Democrats vote in that race of 2008.

   My point is that politicians are supposed to set forth their positions on an optimum number of issues. Certainly, if an issue is viewed by a candidate as being of critical importance—as Governor Daniels has let us know he feels is the case with RTW—the candidate should say so, and place the issue up front.

   The Republicans’ approach to RTW has been one of stealth. Perhaps, more accurately, it has been one of duplicity. They said nothing of this package of laws during their 2008 and 2010 campaigns, when the voters in the State of Indiana could have let our views known. Instead, Republicans obtained seats and pressed an issue no one had been aware would be pressed.

   Tomorrow, it looks like, a vote will be held on whether RTW should be determined by referendum ballot in November.

   If the voters were not able to let their views known on the matter because Republican candidates made no mention of it in the last two elections, then the matter should go on the referendum. The are drawbacks to that method of promulgation of laws. But it beats sneaking a package through without voter input.