CLEVELAND, Ohio - On this, the Republican Ohio Senate president and the Democrat minority leader agree: voters need to approve Issue 1 to reform the way congressional districts are drawn in Ohio, they told a City Club audience Thursday.

Larry Obhof, the Senate president from Medina, and Kenny Yuko, the minority leader from Richmond Heights, were joined by Common Cause Ohio Executive Director Catherine Turcer to discuss the May 8 ballot issue.

It couldn't be called a debate because there was no opposition present, nor is there any known organized opposition to the proposal. There have, however, been some concerns raised. For example, the American Civil Liberties has said it will not support the reform plan because it doesn't go far enough, though the ACLU is not opposing the ballot issue.

Obhof, Yuko and Turcer used Thursday's event to take on such concerns.

"If you're going to let perfect be the enemy of the good, are you certain you are going to (eventually) win?" Obhof asked, noting years of failures to reform redistricting.

Turcer traced reform efforts to 1981, when it was advocated by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.

"Your choice is Issue 1 and the status quo," said Turcer, who predicted the status quo would lead to more lopsided, unrepresentative maps because of increasingly sophisticated mapping and data mining capabilities.

Issue 1 is the result of a compromise struck in the Ohio legislature in February to set new limits on how congressional district lines will be drawn following the 2020 census.

Yuko said it took a great deal of work for Republicans, Democrats and about 40 outside groups interested in reform to reach an agreement that could be supported.

"The contrast is day and night" between the proposal and the current situation, Yuko said. "I can't even picture a no vote on this."

The proposal doesn't go as far as what has been done in other states where politicians were removed in favor of independent commissions. And it doesn't go as far as what was being proposed in petitions circulated statewide calling for a public vote for a different reform to change the Ohio Constitution.

But if Issue 1 is approved, restrictions will be imposed where none exist now:

Requiring that districts be compact, not meandering for 100 or more miles across the state.

Limiting how often counties could be split into different districts, a strategy used in the past to protect one political party or the other.

Mandating at least some support from each major political party for approval of new 10-year maps. (Without the buy-in from both parties, a four-year map could be approved under stricter rules.)

Related:

cleveland.com analysis of the redistricting proposal

A good version of a map under the new rules

A bad version of a map under the new rules

The Ohio Senate voted 31-0 to put Issue 1 on the ballot. The vote was 83-10 in the Ohio House. Both political parties have pledged to include vote yes on Issue 1 messages in their campaign materials, according to the Issue 1 campaign.

Passage could lead to significant change when the next maps are drawn.

Ohio now has no rules outside of federal requirements that districts be about the same size and following the Voting Rights Act.

This is just one example of a gerrymandered Ohio congressional district. People in Sheffield, Elyria and Amherst are among those represented by Jim Jordan. Jordan's district begins in Lorain County, just west Cleveland, stretches more than 100 miles south to suburban Columbus and then west to within about 12 miles of the Indiana border.

The last two sets of maps were approved in 2001 and 2011 with the Republicans holding full control of the process - the Ohio House, Ohio Senate and governor's office. They were designed to maximize political control, pushing as many Democrats into as few districts as possible with little concern for geography.

Under the current maps, Republicans have won 75 percent of the races with a with just 56 percent of the overall vote against Democrats. There has been almost no competition - the closest race in 2016 was decided by 18.4 points. And there was little or no regard for providing voters a "local" representative in Congress.

New congressional maps are drawn each 10 years. This chart shows the share of the seats won by Republicans and share of votes Republican vs. Democrats, excluding votes for third-party or independent candidates, according to cleveland.com research.

Obhof told the City Club competitive races were necessary, noting what he has seen as a sharper focus among representatives from competitive districts to do good work for their constituents.

"Every public official ought to worry about the consequences," Obhof said.

Rich Exner, data analysis editor for cleveland.com, writes about numbers on a variety of topics. Follow on Twitter @RichExner.

Vote history

Shown below are combined vote totals for past congressional elections in Ohio, comparing the total votes won statewide (excluding votes for third-party and independent candidates) and the number of congressional races won statewide. New congressional maps are drawn every 10 years.

Elections Votes won

by GOP

candidates Seats won

by GOP

candidates GOP

winners Dem.

winners 1972-1980 53.2% 60.9% 70 45 1982-1990 48.5% 48.6% 51 54 1992-2000 52.6% 57.9% 55 40 2002-2010 51.3% 62.2% 56 34 2012-2016 56.0% 75.0% 36 12 Election-by-election results 1972 55.1% 69.6% 16 7 1974 51.1% 65.2% 15 8 1976 51.3% 56.5% 13 10 1978 53.5% 56.5% 13 10 1980 54.4% 56.5% 13 10 1982 44.6% 52.4% 11 10 1984 50.3% 47.6% 10 11 1986 50.4% 47.6% 10 11 1988 49.8% 47.6% 10 11 1990 46.8% 47.6% 10 11 1992 49.5% 47.4% 9 10 1994 59.2% 68.4% 13 6 1996 51.9% 57.9% 11 8 1998 52.6% 57.9% 11 8 2000 51.6% 57.9% 11 8 2002 57.1% 66.7% 12 6 2004 51.3% 66.7% 12 6 2006 47.3% 61.1% 11 7 2008 47.5% 44.4% 8 10 2010 56.4% 72.2% 13 5 2012 52.1% 75.0% 12 4 2014 60.2% 75.0% 12 4 2016 58.2% 75.0% 12 4

2016 results

District Republican Democrat 1 Chabot, Steve 59.2% Young, Michele 40.8% 2 Wenstrup, Brad 66.4% Smith, William 33.6% 3 Adams, John 31.4% Beatty, Joyce 68.6% 4 Jordan, Jim 68.0% Garrett, Janet 32.0% 5 Latta, Bob 70.9% Neu, James 29.1% 6 Johnson, Bill 70.7% Garrison, Jennifer 29.3% 7 Gibbs, Bob 68.9% Rich, Roy 31.1% 8 Davidson, Warren 71.8% Fought, Steven 28.2% 9 Larson, Donald 31.3% Kaptur, Marcy 68.7% 10 Turner, Mike 66.2% Klepinger, Robert 33.8% 11 Goldstein, Beverly 19.7% Fudge, Marcia L. 80.3% 12 Tiberi, Pat 69.0% Albertson, Ed 31.0% 13 Morckel, Richard 32.3% Ryan, Tim 67.7% 14 Joyce, David P. 62.6% Wager, Michael 37.4% 15 Stivers, Steve 66.2% Wharton, Scott 33.8% 16 Renacci, Jim 65.3% Mundy, Keith 34.7%

Source: cleveland.com/datacentral analysis of Ohio Secretary of State records.

Note: Excluded from the statewide tables are votes for third-party and independent candidates, as well as votes in special elections.This allowed for a direct comparison between share of votes won and congressional seats won.

