Coronavirus in rural America (Part LXII): The great (mandatory) mask war

Regular readers of this blog will know that one of my pet peeves is a national newspaper referring to state like Arkansas as "a rural state," suggesting that it is rural in its entirety when a majority of people live in urban areas (at least as defined by the Census Bureau).  Nevertheless, I"m going to commit that sin in this post by loosely labeling Arkansas, where I grew up, a "rural state" to contrast it with another state that is primarily urban, my current home, California.  Both states have reported their highest rates of coronavirus infections this past week, but when it comes to mandatory masks, the two states' responses are at nearly opposite ends of the spectrum. 

Yesterday, the governor of Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson (R), said that municipalities could not require residents to wear masks when in public.  He did this in response to decisions by the cities of Fayetteville and, shortly thereafter, Little Rock, to order the wearing of masks in public places.  Here's what the Arkansas Democrat Gazette reported in relation to an an extension of the governor's

emergency declaration that would keep in place measures such as the executive orders he signed this week granting businesses and health care workers greater immunity from coronavirus-related lawsuits and extending workers' compensation benefits to Arkansans who contract the virus on the job.

[The governor] also noted language in the order giving him and Health Department Secretary Nate Smith "sole authority over all instances of quarantine, isolation, and restrictions on commerce and travel." 

"Cities and counties shall not impose any restriction of commerce or travel that is more restrictive than a directive or guidelines issued by the Secretary of Health, in consultation with the Governor," Hutchinson said in the order.

These paragraphs were buried pretty deep in the day's big story about the coronavirus in Arkansas and were not part of any headline, and I am disappointed that the statewide newspaper shied away from foregrounding this important conflict.  I would not have known of the governor's decision to "overrule" the cities had I not seen it highlighted in my Twitter feed by some progressive Arkansans.

Meanwhile, Governor Newsom (D) today in California ordered the wearing of masks in public places.  Of course, California has been on the vanguard of more aggressive public health orders since the beginning of the pandemic, with a shelter-in-place order since mid-March.  Here's coverage by CalMatters and the Los Angeles Times.  

Do these different decisions (and the fact one state has a Democratic supermajority and other a Republican supermajority) reflect different mindsets by rural folks compared to urban ones?  Does Arkansas (population 3 million, with 42% living in rural counties) have more of a frontier, "live free or die" mentality than California?  The Golden State, after all, is more urban, more densely populated generally (40 million people, 98% of whom live in urban areas as defined by the Census), and more accustomed to regulation?   

Meanwhile, Governor Doug Ducey (R) of Arizona has finally given local governments the authority to require face masks in public, as reported here by AZCentral, and many are choosing to do so as coronavirus cases in the state spike.  Perhaps most bizarre is the decision of the Nebraska Governor, Dave Ricketts (R), to announce he will withhold federal funding to any local government entity that imposes a mask requirement.  Although, now that I think about it, that's no stronger a move than the Arkansas governor doing the same thing by fiat, without bringing money into it.