Does U.S. governors’ partisanship matter to their responses to the COVID-19 public health crisis? Drawing from upper echelons theory, we examined whether and when the governors’ partisanship (Democratic versus Republican) matters to the time they took to issue stay-at-home orders, which are believed to be a strong defense to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings based on event history methodology reveal that Democratic governors took about 9 fewer days than Republican governors to issue statewide stay-at-home orders. In addition, governing discretion and governing demands exacerbated the relationships of governors’ partisanship with the time to their issuance of stay-at-home orders. For instance, when governing discretion was high, Democratic governors took 18 fewer days than Republican governors to issue stay-at-home orders. Moreover, when governing demands were high, Democratic governors took 25 fewer days than Republican governors to declare stay-at-home orders. Our findings are robust to different sets of analyses and the implementation of a comprehensive set of controls. This research provides theoretical implications and timely and actionable implications for various stakeholders in the on-going fight against COVID-19 as well as insights for policymakers to take note of in future decision making.

美国州长的党派偏见对他们对 COVID-19 公共卫生危机的反应是否重要？根据高层理论，我们研究了州长的党派之争（民主党与共和党）是否以及何时与他们发布居家令的时间有关，这被认为是对抗 COVID-19 大流行的有力防御. 我们基于事件历史方法的调查结果显示，民主党州长发布全州居家令的时间比共和党州长少约 9 天。此外，执政自由裁量权和执政要求加剧了州长的党派偏见与他们发布居家令的时间之间的关系。例如，当执政自由裁量权很高时，民主党州长发布居家令的时间比共和党州长少 18 天。而且，当执政要求很高时，民主党州长宣布居家令的时间比共和党州长少 25 天。我们的发现对不同的分析集和一套综合控制的实施都是稳健的。这项研究为与 COVID-19 的持续斗争中的各个利益相关者提供了理论意义和及时且可操作的意义，并为决策者在未来的决策中提供了参考。