COVID-19 and the Test of Federalism

The COVID-19 pandemic has tested the U.S. federalist system.
Discourse largely focuses on health consequences of varying state restrictions.
Conflicting policies reveal unresolved constitutional issues.
Federalism involves the distribution of authority between national and state governments.
The pandemic demonstrates that these boundaries are blurred and challenging to define.

Criticism regarding executive power in the Constitution reflects fears of tyranny through a strong presidency.
The Federalist stance emphasized checks and balances to prevent power grabs.
Growth of Executive Authority:
- Both national and state levels have seen a significant increase in the size and authority of executive branches.
- Chief Justice John Roberts highlights that today’s executive powers would astonish the Framers of the Constitution.
- The state governors’ powers have expanded due to emergencies, as citizens look to them for immediate action.
- Legislative and judicial branches typically respond slower than executive branches during crises.
- Example: Trump administration acted in early February while Congress delayed CARES Act until late March.

The national government increasingly relies on states to perform key roles, particularly in healthcare.
This reliance fosters the growth of state executive powers.
Political strategies involving federalism:
- National leaders may enact vague policies allowing states to implement details, thus shifting responsibility.
- This can lead to increased partisan conflict.
- Example: Trump’s comments about Democratic governors showcase the interplay between federalism and political partisanship.

Elections serve as a means for citizens to address party policies but highlight federalism complications.
The Elections Clause mandates state-level regulation causing variability in electoral laws.
Approximately 8,000 jurisdictions administer elections creating a “hyperfederalized” system, complicating governance.
COVID-19 led over 20 states to postpone elections and raised litigation issues over voting policies.

Accountability for COVID-19 responses complicates political responsibility.
Citizens may struggle to determine whom to blame or reward when outcomes fluctuate.
The role of unelected administrators complicates this dynamic—e.g., potential issues with FDA vaccine approval could invite blame on different parties.
As elections approach, clear lines of accountability become imperative for voters.
Ironically, the Framers saw federalism as a means to enhance accountability and welfare for citizens.
The effectiveness of the constitutional design in achieving these goals is uncertain as the pandemic progresses.