He did think about calling for a vote, he said. Sitting on the floor, Illinois state Rep. Greg Harris, the openly gay chief sponsor of the state's equal marriage bill, made one of the toughest calls of his career May 31.
After months of pushing and hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into the campaign, Harris decided to postpone a vote on equal marriage. The legislature's spring session ended without a vote.
Harris said the bill lacked the votes it needed to pass and that colleagues had promised their support in November, after they had more time to build favor in their districts. But LGBT groups blasted Harris, saying that the bill deserved the vote he had promised.
Windy City Times sat down with Harris in an extensive interview on the strategy behind his decision to wait, what he thinks got in the way of a vote and what went through his mind that Friday when he stood up and tearfully told supporters that a vote wouldn't happen before session's end.
Windy City Times: So let's talk about what is happening in Illinois right now that has made you feel this is the time when we can pass equal marriage.
Greg Harris: The inevitability of it passing legislatively is I have 117 other colleagues with whom I regularly keep touch on this issue, and listening to them evolve. And as this exploded into the consciousness of the Illinois media and community discussions, just as it has in other states, seeing the results of the elections in November. But basically, the talk within their communities. It's been pretty obvious how people's opinions have been shifting on this.
WCT: Is the Illinois legislature lagging behind constituents on this issue?
Greg Harris: Take any issue that you want that's really high-profile: pensions or guns. The people who are fervent on those issues, most usually people who are in opposition, are well-organized, really motivated and they barrage you with their thoughts. And marriage I think is the same way. So if you listen to your phone calls every day, if you read your emails and your mail, if you think about the people who come up to you in the Jewel … you get a view of, "Wow, there's really a lot of public opinion on this." So sometimes the fierceness of people who are organized in opposition to something can skew your perceptions. People who are supportive are not quite as fervent.
WCT: The initial plan after this bill fell short in the veto session was to get it passed through both chambers by February's end. My understanding was that sponsors hoped to bring it for a vote before anti-gay groups could mobilize.
Greg Harris: There would be two strategies about one chamber acting and then another. Some people would say you've got to act right at the same time, just virtually no lag time between to avoid allowing opposition to build. Others would say, on an issue like this, which clearly is a close vote, that one chamber acting and laying the groundwork and helping shape the opinion that is, in fact, the destiny of this legislation to be passed, sends a very important message to the next chamber going forward.
WCT: Going into the end of the session, I asked you if you would call the bill for a vote before session ended on May 31. Your response was, 'absolutely.' What happened between that conversation and the last day of session?
Greg Harris: I think our opponents were able to put a lot of resources into targeted communities to generate misinformation, particularly about how this legislation affected religious freedom that caused a lot of concern among some of my colleagues. Also, keep in mind that in passing legislation like this, if you're a proponent, you have to be sure that you have exactly 60, or to have a cushion 61 votes. So that's your job. You've got to hold all those people together.
If you're the opponent, all you have to do is find one or two to pull off, and you don't necessarily get held to account for how you do it.
I think some of my colleagues became very concerned that they had not been back in their districts and that this misinformation was out there. They wanted to be able to go back and explain and defend what they believed was the right thing to do.
WCT: When was the first moment that you realized things were looking shaky?
Greg Harris: To think that the roll call is looked as a frozen moment in time, as a photograph, is just not accurate. You always have ups and downs, ups and downs constantly.
WCT: Did you have a lot of ups and downs on those last two days?
Greg Harris: Oh yeah.
WCT: Did you have some sort of sign? When was it?
Greg Harris: Clearly I did because made the decision that I did.
WCT: What was that moment?
Greg Harris: Well, again, I don't get what specific members say … . Just remember how technology has changed, how votes are taken. Everyone says you should put it on what's called "postponed consideration." (Postponed consideration allows a vote to be pulled from record to keep a bill alive.)
In the not-so-distant past, that strategy worked differently than even today because there are people who would have said on an issue, if this is going to win, I want to be on the winning side. But if it looks like it's going down, I'm coming off. So as those green and red lights go up on the board, in the days before handheld video cameras, there was not a record necessarily of how votes changed. You could end up with a roll call that's even worse than getting it on postponed consideration.
WCT: So your concern was that you would fall short on votes in planning for postponed consideration?
Greg Harris: That you would have an artificially low total, whatever that number would be. And that people could be locked into a vote. It's one thing to vote on an issue and explain your vote. It's another thing to vote on one thing one day, come back the next day, and explain how you've evolved that suddenly, especially if it's in short order.
WCT: The Illinois Unites for Marriage Coalition wanted the opportunity to go after people in elections that will not support this bill. Strategically, what is the case for not calling it?
Greg Harris: Well, again, look at when the vote may get called. It still may get called before the primary. There might be an opportunity to get people on record, but then you also have to look at if you go after somebody in order to make a political statement, I think you have to be really sure that you'll be successful.
WCT: Did you consider calling the bill even though you knew it would fail?
Greg Harris: Oh, I agonized over both those options, sitting on the floor and talking to my colleagues.
WCT: Did you have any sense of the kind of backlash that would result from not calling it?
Greg Harris: I think I knew that it was an incredibly tough decision to have to make. The way the legislative system is set up, if you choose to be a sponsor of a bill, you are the one who is responsible for making those decisions in the best way you know how.
WCT: On that Friday night when you stood up to announce the bill would not be called, there was a moment when people in the gallery started shouting at you to call the bill. You paused, and it almost looked like you might call it.
Greg Harris: I had risen for a point of personal privilege. It was a different part of our House rules.
WCT: So, was it too late at that point?
Greg Harris: I mean, you're talking about how do we go back and change history.
WCT: I am curious because I think this moment is important for people who were watching that night. The coalition leaders were sending text messages to people in the gallery, asking them to yell at you to call the bill. So what I am asking is at what point calling the bill was no longer an option for you.
Greg Harris: Well, when I stood, I had to do what I thought was the correct thing to do. Sometimes, it's not the popular thing to do, but for the time, I felt it was the correct thing to do.
WCT: Was there a conversation with the coalition about what might happen if the votes weren't there?
Greg Harris: We've talked all along. There were many, many options of how these things could unfold. We also know that the forces affecting those options change constantly.
WCT: A lot of people said they were not upset that the bill did not come up for a vote, but that they had felt led on. For people who have trust issues with you over that, what is the message you want to give them moving forward?
Greg Harris: That the goal here, as I think I've said, is that you have to have the long view in politics. You also have to sort of know, not only our own history, but the history of other struggles.
WCT: Have people been unfair to you and sponsors of the bill over the lack of a vote?
Greg Harris: You know, I need to do what I think is the right thing and keep this issue moving forward.
WCT: What do you want this movement to look like moving forward?
Greg Harris: There's a lot of work to be done in a lot of local rep. districts. You need to look at where our opponents are looking and targeting and attacking people because they seem to think that there is some kind of vulnerability. We need to build strength there, and we need to do that by working with folks that live and work and function in those districts.
WCT: Some have argued that there was a lack of community involvement, with people rallying and marching in favor of this bill. I am wondering if you agree with that.
Greg Harris: Movements have all different kinds of parts and people fill all different kinds of roles. There's direct action, and that's a very important component. There's the in-district organizing. There's the media strategy that's very important … each of these is an important piece, and you have to do them all. It's always hard to say, if one is more important that the other because there's 118 districts and you've got to do all these things.
WCT: Did you believe on Friday that you had 60 votes?
Greg Harris: I'm not getting into specific roll calls.
WCT: But did you think you had the votes to pass this at the end of session?
Greg Harris: I think when the decision had to get made, I was really aware that there were enough people who were unwilling to cast that vote at that time that the best result was to make the decision I did.
WCT: But before that decision, did you think you had the support to pass it?
Greg Harris: I think the support has built continually over the year.
WCT: A lot of people have accused House Speaker Michael Madigan of not prioritizing this issue and securing the votes. Is that a fair criticism?
Greg Harris: I think we all need to do more. As I said, there's all the different strategies, and then internal house strategies among the Democratic and the Republican Caucus.
I think in the Republican Caucus you were looking at potentially having some more votes also, and then it became news over there that the minority leader [Tom Cross] might be thinking about running for statewide office, which set off a scramble to see who could rise up within leadership in the Republican caucus. Members who had thought, "Hey, we need to vote for marriage equality because it's the right thing to do," suddenly were thinking, "If I'm going to run for a leadership position in the Republican Caucus, if the decide votes will be right-wingers or tea-partiers, I shouldn't vote for marriage equality anymore." So all kinds of things interplay on these kinds of decisions.
WCT: Do you have any regrets about the last year on this bill?
Greg Harris: I would love to have seen it pass and signed into law.
WCT: Do you think this will pass in November?
Greg Harris: I'm not talking about timelines or roll calls.
WCT: On Friday afternoon, you went up into the gallery and met with LGBT families who were there to see the vote. Did you know at that point that things were looking bad for the bill?
Greg Harris: When I went up to the families, I was very hopeful.
WCT: People have complained about a lack of transparency in this process. Is that fair a critique?
Greg Harris: I think if you were talk to any major lobbying organization they would say, "Yeah, you always keep your roll call as close to your chest as you can because the last thing you want to do is paint targets on the backs of those who are your supporters in advance of a vote."
WCT: Were there weekly meetings of the sponsors on this bill?
Greg Harris: Sometimes more than a couple times. And again, people know the broad outline of the work that needs to be done. We checked in about it on a fairly regular basis.
WCT: What were you thinking in the moments before you stood up to announce the bill would be postponed?
Greg Harris: What was in my mind was how heartbreaking this was going to be to so many people. This a step backward, yes, but it's part of a political process, and it causes us to rise up and call upon the best in ourselves.
WCT: What is the strategy moving forward?
Greg Harris: The key ingredients to victory are the same as they were before. We need to take the information that we have on how our opponents attack us. We have to counteract that. We have to say that the LGBT community is united, and we will never stop the fight for what is right.
WCT: But were there mistakes made in this push? I think a lot of people are asking what is going to change now.
Greg Harris: Hindsight is 20/20 and in the rearview mirror, you can always [ask], "Would I have done this differently?" There are always things you could have done differently.
WCT: What are those things?
Greg Harris: But going forward, you have to say, "We need to understand how our opponents are attacking us, we have to address those attacks, and we have to shore up our friends who want to be with us." And I think you don't evaluate an entire effort like this until it's totally concluded.
WCT: But for people who have invested a lot into this issue with the understanding from the coalition and from you that they would see a vote this year, what is the message? How do they keep faith in this campaign?
Greg Harris: The faith that countless generations who have struggled for equality before us have shown their unrelenting dedication to rising and marching and sometimes stumbling and falling but continuing to rise and march again until we are victorious.