In 1893, Colorado experienced a constitutional crisis when two rival factions claimed control of the State House of Representatives. The dispute led to a military standoff at the state capitol and required a definitive ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court to restore the United States state government to order.
TLDR: Following the 1892 elections, Colorado’s House of Representatives split into two competing bodies, each electing its own Speaker. The standoff escalated into a physical occupation of the state capitol and a military threat before the state Supreme Court ruled the Republican-led House was the only legal legislative body.
The 1892 elections in Colorado occurred against a backdrop of severe economic turmoil, driven largely by the collapse of silver prices and the onset of the Panic of 1893. This environment proved fertile ground for the People’s Party, or Populists, who championed the interests of miners and farmers against established political elites. Davis Waite, a radical Populist, won the governorship, but the legislative results were far less clear. When the Ninth General Assembly convened in Denver in January 1893, both the Republicans and the Populists claimed they held the majority in the House of Representatives. This dispute was not merely a procedural disagreement; it evolved into a full-scale constitutional crisis that threatened the very foundations of the state government.
On the opening day of the session, the two factions refused to recognize each other’s authority, leading to a surreal scene. The Republicans elected George B. Hollands as Speaker, while the Populists chose Elias M. Ammons. In an unprecedented display of legislative absurdity, both men attempted to occupy the Speaker’s rostrum simultaneously. For several weeks, two rival ‘Houses’ operated within the same chamber. They sat side-by-side, each conducting its own business, passing its own motions, and ignoring the presence of the other. The spectacle, often referred to as the ‘War of the Speakers,’ drew national attention as a total breakdown of the democratic process. Members of both parties frequently slept in the chamber to ensure they did not lose their physical claim to the space.
Governor Waite, frustrated by the Republican refusal to yield and the resulting legislative paralysis, eventually declared the Republican-led House an illegal body. He issued an executive order for the National Guard to clear the capitol and install the Populist faction as the sole legislative authority. In response, the Republican members and their supporters barricaded themselves inside the House chamber. They armed themselves with pistols, clubs, and even improvised weapons, preparing for a physical confrontation with the state militia. The situation reached a fever pitch as the National Guard, under the Governor’s orders, deployed Gatling guns and cannons on the capitol grounds, pointing them directly at the windows of the legislative hall. Thousands of citizens gathered outside, some cheering for the Governor and others for the Republicans, creating a powder keg atmosphere in downtown Denver.
Violence was narrowly averted when both sides agreed to a temporary truce to allow the Colorado Supreme Court to adjudicate the matter. The legal question centered on whether the executive branch had the authority to determine the legitimacy of a legislative body and whether the court had jurisdiction over such a political dispute. The court’s intervention was seen as the only path to prevent bloodshed in the streets. During the proceedings, the city remained under a state of high tension, with partisan supporters of both sides crowding the capitol steps and the courtroom.
In the landmark ruling ‘In re Speaker of the House of Representatives,’ the Colorado Supreme Court sided with the Republicans. The justices determined that the Republican-led House was the legally constituted body because it possessed the necessary certificates of election for a majority of its members. The court emphasized that while the governor had the power to call out the militia to suppress insurrection, he did not have the power to use military force to interfere with the internal organization of the legislature. This established a critical precedent regarding the separation of powers. Governor Waite, though deeply dissatisfied and accusing the court of partisan bias, ultimately complied with the judicial decree to avoid further escalation.
The Colorado Legislative War of 1893 left a lasting mark on the state’s political history and the broader understanding of the separation of powers in the United States. It underscored the necessity of clear certification processes for elections and the role of the judiciary as a final arbiter in partisan deadlocks. Following the crisis, Colorado implemented more rigorous standards for legislative conduct and election verification to prevent a recurrence of such chaos. The event remains a primary example of how Gilded Age political polarization could push state institutions to the brink of collapse, highlighting the fragility of democratic norms when faced with extreme partisan division.
Lila Hayes serves as a Staff Writer for Just Right News, where she anchors the “Courts, Law, and Constitutional Order” beat. Her work is defined by a steadfast commitment to the foundational principles of the American republic and a rigorous defense of the legal frameworks that ensure national stability. As a primary voice for the outlet, she provides readers with a clear-eyed analysis of the judiciary, focusing on the importance of originalism and the preservation of the separation of powers.
Lila’s perspective was forged in the American heartland. Raised in St. Louis, Missouri, she grew up in a Hispanic household where the values of hard work, faith, and respect for the law were paramount. Her upbringing instilled in her a deep appreciation for the American Dream and the legal protections that make it possible. This Missouri background remains a cornerstone of her reporting, providing a grounded, common-sense counter-narrative to the often-insular legal circles of the coastal elite. She understands that the decisions made in high-court chambers have real-world consequences for families and small business owners across the country.
At Just Right News, Lila has become widely recognized for her signature feature series, “The Rulebook of Power.” In this ongoing project, she delves into the mechanics of the federal government, examining how administrative overreach and judicial activism can threaten the delicate balance of the Constitution. She approaches her beat with the tenacity of a veteran journalist and the precision of a legal scholar, consistently advocating for a judiciary that interprets the law as written rather than legislating from the bench. For Lila, the Constitution is not a “living” document subject to the whims of modern social trends; it is a fixed standard that ensures the government remains the servant of the people, not their master.
Now based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Lila finds herself at the very epicenter of American constitutional history. Living and working in the city where the Founders drafted the documents she defends daily provides a constant source of inspiration. The historic halls and landmarks of Philadelphia serve as a daily reminder of the high stakes involved in her reporting. Her presence in the city allows her to bridge the gap between the historical intent of the law and its contemporary application, ensuring that the legacy of the Founding Fathers remains central to the national conversation.
Throughout her career, Lila has remained dedicated to the idea that a free society requires an informed citizenry and a transparent legal system. Her reporting is more than just a collection of headlines; it is a defense of the constitutional order that has sustained the nation for over two centuries. By focusing on the “Rulebook of Power,” she ensures that her readers understand not just what is happening in the courtrooms, but why those decisions matter for the future of American liberty. Lila Hayes continues to be a vital voice for those who believe that the law should be a shield for the citizen and a constraint on the state.