Pandemics and Partisanship: Following Old Paths into Uncharted Territory

• Author: Luke Fowler,Stephanie L. Witt,Jaclyn J. Kettler
• Published date: 01 January 2021
• Date: 01 January 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X20961024
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X20961024

American Politics Research

2021, Vol. 49(1) 3 –16

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X20961024

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

Article

The COVID-191 pandemic has swiftly become a global

health crisis that is challenging governmental capacities

around the world to contain the spread of the virus and pro-

vide health services to the infected. While critics, domestic

and abroad, have largely panned the U.S. federal response

efforts in initial weeks, state governors, in contrast, were

quick to take action as the pandemic arrived on their door-

steps (Nossel, 2020; Rubin, 2020; Slaughter, 2020). For

example, on February 29, Washington Governor Jay Inslee,

at the early epicenter of the outbreak in the U.S., was the

first U.S. elected official to formally declare a state of emer-

gency in response to COVID-19. California Governor Gavin

Newsome followed suit within days, and by March 16, gov-

ernors of all 50 states had officially declared emergencies

(Povich, 2020). Notably, this is the first time in American

history that every state chief executive has done so in

response to a public health crisis (Federal Emergency

Management Agency [FEMA], 2020). While partisan poli-

tics tend be set aside during such times, the timing of guber-

natorial action is telling about how partisanship shapes the

way elected officials are reacting to this pandemic. For

instance, 20 of 23 Democratic governors declared emergen-

cies in their states before President Donald Trump declared

a national emergency on March 13, while less than half of

Republican governors did (12 of 27).

Historically, emergency declarations tend to be in

response to natural or man-made disasters that tend to be

defined by unplanned, dangerous situations that threaten

human life for a temporary period of time, and as a result,

create social or economic disruption (e.g., hurricanes in the

Gulf Coast states, wildfires in the West) (FEMA, 2020;

Rutkow, 2014; Rutkow & Vernick, 2017). Less common are

instances of emergencies related to public health crises.

While also unplanned, these events tend to be viewed as less

socially or economically disruptive and/or less acutely

threatening to human life in the short-term. Additionally,

mitigating public health crises typically unfolds over the

long-term, which diminishes the temporary element of an

emergency. Of course, this has not stopped experts from

using “public health emergency” in political discourses to

describe events such as the Zika virus (Gulland, 2016), the

opioid addiction crisis (Gostin et al., 2017), or even gun vio-

lence (Koop & Lundberg, 1992). While a select few states

issued public health emergency declarations to address

H1N1 and the opioid addition crisis, this has been rare

(Rutkow, 2014; Rutkow & Vernick, 2017). Nevertheless, the

COVID-19 pandemic has been distinctly different from pre-

vious public health crises in that the timing, potential sever-

ity, and disruption to social and economic norms in the U.S.

has been more akin to a disaster, which has been a major

catalyst for elected officials to employ the “emergency”

moniker and invoke powers reserved for dire situations.

For governors, declaring an emergency has both sub-

stantive and symbolic benefits. While authorizing

961024APRXXX10.1177/1532673X20961024American Politics ResearchFowler et al.

research-article2020

1Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA

Corresponding Author:

Luke Fowler, Boise State University, 1910 University Dr, Boise, ID 83725,

USA.

Email: lukefowler@boisestate.edu

Pandemics and Partisanship: Following

Old Paths into Uncharted Territory

Luke Fowler1, Jaclyn J. Kettler1, and Stephanie L. Witt1

Abstract

Although partisan politics tend be set aside during crisis, the timing of gubernatorial actions in response to COVID-19

is telling about how partisanship is shaping the way elected officials are reacting to this pandemic. Using an event history

analysis, the authors find that Democratic governors responded to the White House’s attempts to downplay the severity

of the pandemic by declaring emergencies in order to draw citizen attention to and to prepare for a public health crisis. On

the other hand, Republican governors resisted doing so until Trump declared a national emergency on March 13; however,

Republican reactions were conditional on the president’s job approval in their states. While the COVID-19 pandemic

has pushed governments into uncharted territory, state governors appear to be following patterns of vertical partisan

competition that mirror those of more conventional policy areas in recent years.

Keywords

partisanship, COVID-19, federalism, emergency declaration