Across the country, governors seem to be in charge. With COVID-19 consuming our lives, these executives lead their states’ responses to its spread. In fact, governors so dominate policy that they seem to act as the sole decision-makers in their states.
This power placement may make some nervous. After all, did we not fight for independence in part to shake off the chains of one-man rule? Have we not organized our state (and national) governments with separated branches, each able to check the excesses of the others?
Yes and yes. Still, the founders anticipated and even gave limited approval to this kind of executive dominance. They understood that chief executives, state or national, stood best equipped to handle a crisis in its early stages.
In a pandemic, time is of the essence. We have seen that mere days can make significant differences in whether states face overwhelming or manageable infection rates. We also have seen persistence in action pay off and its opposite reap painful fruit. Therefore, in a crisis, government must act swiftly, consistently, and decisively.
Governors stand best equipped to act in all of these ways because of what Alexander Hamilton called their “unity.” As with the presidency, only one governor serves at a time. Hamilton argued that “decision, activity, secrecy, and despatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number.” As the sole decider, one person can react with speed and assertiveness and then maintain the government’s response as the crisis unfolds.
The same could not be said of a committee, a legislature, or even a group of judges. Their plurality too easily risked disagreement, leading to actions plagued both by delay and desultoriness. In a pandemic, that costs more than time. It costs lives.
Thus, the founders would see executive dominance as right for the early days of a crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. However, they did not believe state power should remain so consolidated. The other branches (legislatures and judges) may not have an executive’s virtues. But as a crisis develops, their own contributions become increasingly necessary.
Good legislatures are defined by deliberation. In composing bills, they weigh competing language and interests, often seeking distinct perspectives through vigorous debate. They do so to refine out potential mistakes and to avoid unintended, possibly pernicious consequences. Deliberation thus encourages a measured pace, not a fast one. These qualities may better serve a state after the initial wave of COVID-19 arrives.
As states consider longer-term policies, including when and how to return to normal, legislative deliberation may rightly temper executive energy. State houses and senates can and should exercise their own authority to better craft state responses, modifying or even contradicting governors where needed.
In similar fashion, good judiciaries offer the virtue of judgment. They interpret law as a means to decide cases that come before them. Courts thus hold a special relationship to the law. Without law’s authority, judges have no means to act, no authority themselves. This creates a perspective of dedication to the law that, while not entirely absent in other branches, is more focused in good judges.
States also need this perspective as a crisis unfolds. An energetic executive may overreach, acting swiftly and decisively beyond or against the laws. Doing so is well on the road to one-person rule — and with that rule to tyranny. Judges’ unique dedication to the law can help restrain this executive tendency, tempering its excesses and affirming fidelity to rule by law.
Thus, as the pandemic develops, so must the balance of power exercised within state governments. We will continue to need swift, decisive, and consistent action from our governors. But we also will need the deliberation of our legislatures and the judgment of our courts. We need them to best respond to this crisis for the long term. We also need their contributions to affirm that, much as governors seem in charge for now, the ultimate power resides somewhere else: in the people.
Adam Carrington is the assistant professor of politics at Hillsdale College.
