The New York Times acts like this is a new thing.
However anyone that understands federalism knows this has been the way it was set up. Or had to deal with the fact that automakers have conformed to the dictates of California regarding the emissions of cars, or paid any attention to the various ways states regulate or deregulate industries with in their borders. Often when one state tries something new, it often spreads from there for example no fault divorce, medical and then recreational marijuana, even permit less concealed carry laws.
Even tax laws in various states have an impact on where corporations that are multinational set their headquarters has an impact.
The question is where a person stands on centralized planning (which the New York Times appears to favor) versus the response in the various localities that are closer to the ground as it were to the situation of their citizens.