Image by Anastasia Gepp from Pixabay
When establishing the governing structure of the United States, the Founding Fathers were wary of giving the central government too much power. They feared creating a tyrannical regime similar to that under which they had suffered as an English colony. The Articles of Confederation was the first legal document establishing a government in the land of the modern United States. The Articles created an extremely weak central government unable to exercise power over the states. For example, Congress held no power of taxation or trade regulation. It was soon apparent to many of the Founding Fathers that a new legal document would have to be crafted to restructure the balance between federal and state power.
In 1788, with the ratification of the Constitution, the United States was founded as a federation, or a collective of states unified under one central government. The principle of federalism gives the central government power, while reserving a level of sovereignty to the states. Two places where federalism is recognized in the text of the Constitution is in Article 1, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment. Article 1, Section 8 outlines enumerated powers, or those reserved for the federal government. The Tenth Amendment states that powers not delegated to the federal government should be reserved to the states, and subsequently the people. Despite the allocation of separate powers for the federal and state government, there are also concurrent powers which are shared between the federal and state governments. Using the reserved powers outlined in the Tenth Amendment, state governments create legislation which applies exclusively within their borders.
In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, some state leaders invoked their Tenth Amendment powers in order to keep their citizens safe. When the Coronavirus outbreak began in the United States, it did not hit all areas equally. Although the federal government passed several relief bills to protect employees, small business owners, first responders, and others, these pieces of legislation mostly addressed financial burdens. None of the bills passed addressed the lack of uniformity between the states, on issues such as mask wearing. Because of the lack of executive strength, individual state government’s use of reserved powers may have saved thousands of lives. In an ideal world, the executive branch would have worked swiftly to create nationwide mandates, in conjunction with local leadership to cater to regional needs.
Due to federalism and lack of executive authority on the pandemic, states legislators created quite different laws to prevent the spread of COVID-19. In the use of federalism, physical proximity of states to one another and the ease of travel over state borders are important factors to consider in the spread of disease. While it may be obvious that Georgia did not handle the pandemic in the same way as Massachusetts, the two states are not physically close to one another so it is unlikely that an increase in cases in one state can be attributed to the other. On the other hand, neighboring states often experience daily intrastate travel of people, so the discrepancy of policies directly impact people in other regions. For example, New Hampshire’s southern border is shared with part of Massachusetts’ northern border. People frequently travel between the two states, which was not problematic until recently. Since the border between the two states is not controlled, it is nearly impossible to prevent the flow of the virus from one state to another.
Why does intrastate travel matter to federalism? As long as Massachusetts continues to allow people to travel into the state from New Hampshire, their strict COVID-19 policies will be practically useless. Specifically, as of November sixth, Massachusetts has implemented a state-wide mask mandate. New Hampshire, on the other hand, only requires masks to be worn in groups of 100 people or more. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, mask wearing helps prevent the spread of COVID-19 by blocking respiratory droplets, which carry the disease, from traveling in the air, and possibly entering another person’s body. For example, a truck driver who lives with his family in northern Massachusetts may enter a rest stop in New Hampshire. Legally, the truck driver may enter the rest stop unmasked. Here the driver may encounter a, legally, unmasked cashier who may unknowingly carry the virus. Then, hypothetically, the truck driver could contract the virus and bring the disease back home to his Massachusetts based community. This scenario is all too frequent with COVID-19. Without federalism laws all laws would be implemented via the federal government, creating uniformity. Federalism clearly creates issues of nonuniformity, which intensify a public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
In addition to federalism, it is important to recognize the way in which political polarization impacted the way in which leaders handled the COVID-19 pandemic. President Donald Trump quickly contributed to the polarization of COVID-19, as he refused to admit to the severity of the pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, the former President had become known for his refusal to wear a mask and follow public-health guidelines. Executive actions helped turn the public health crisis into an issue of red versus blue. For example, in the Presidential debate, President Trump mocked Democratic nominee Joe Biden for wearing a mask, saying: “I don’t wear a mask like him. Every time you see him, he’s got a mask. He could be speaking 200 feet away from him and he shows up with the biggest mask I’ve ever seen.”
The politicalization of the pandemic increased the diversity of responses from state leaders across the country. For example, Georgia, a routinely red state, reopened early and did not implement a mask mandate. On the other hand, Massachusetts, a consistently blue state, reopened in stages and implemented a state-wide mask mandate. The ability for states to make localized decisions on issues is normally beneficial. However, in the case of the pandemic, federalism, crossed with strong country-wide polarization, has prolonged the COVID-19 outbreak.
As a result of Biden’s recent inauguration as President, it is essential to analyze the difference in public health policy that the people of the United States have witnessed and will continue to see. One can assume that as Joe Biden and his Democratic administration continues to implement stricter COVID rules during his time in office, state use of the Tenth Amendment will change drastically. Blue states, which used the Tenth Amendment to enact policy in spite of Trump’s indifference towards the pandemic, may let go of local legislation in favor of following the new President’s lead. Presumably, red states will embrace the Tenth Amendment in rejection of policies stemming from a liberal administration. Overall, increasing polarization in combination with the mixed uses of federalism creates a dangerous precedent of country-wide disunity and chaos, as seen throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.