Most states have some kind of "Ride to the Right" law, usually some variation of staying "as far right as practicable", and ideally with a list of exceptions such as avoiding debris, avoiding right-turn only lanes, and preparing for left turns. Paul Schimek has a nice comparison of these laws in various states in this article. Some states don't even have a Ride to the Right law!
One argument that Paul makes in that article, which I find myself increasingly in agreement with, is that this law is discriminatory and redundant with laws about slow-moving traffic staying to the right. It seems to me that it reinforces the idea that cyclists are not quite as welcome to use the road as motorists are, no matter that the law says elsewhere that we have all the same rights and duties. On the other hand, the better Right to the Right laws will explicitly list exceptions which are not present in the more general purpose slow-moving traffic law, which seems like a good thing.
So would we better off without it, or is it okay as it is?
Related but different question, for extra credit: If you believe it a negative overall, is it worth campaigning to get it repealed in states where it exists?