COLUMBUS — Attorneys representing Ohio Democrats in a legal dispute over changes to the swing state’s voting laws said Monday that a federal judge should strike down the adjustments because their burden on voters — particularly blacks — outweighs any benefits to the state.

But lawyers for the state claim the voting changes are minor. Plus, they say, Ohio offers many opportunities for its residents to vote — including 39 early voting hours on evenings and weekends during the 2016 presidential election.

At issue in the case are a series of Republican-backed changes that Democrats allege disproportionately burden minority voters and those who lean Democratic. Among the policy changes was the elimination of a week of early voting in which Ohioans also could register to vote, known as “golden week.”

U.S. District Judge Michael Watson heard opening statements and some witness testimony in the trial that began Monday and is expected to stretch into next week. The case is being tried before Judge Watson instead of a jury.

The lawsuit also challenges rules related to absentee and provisional ballots, and limitations to in-person, early voting locations. Ohio law limits each county to one early voting site, regardless of the county’s size and population.

Democrats want Judge Watson to block the policies from being enforced.

Josh Kaul, an attorney for Democrats, said in his opening statement that restricting early voting opportunities have a disproportionate impact on blacks, who he said are more likely to work in hourly wage jobs with little flexibility to vote. He said they also are more likely to have limited access to child care and transportation.

Faced with such barriers, Mr. Kaul said, golden week has provided black voters and others with a one-stop-shop to both register and vote.

“The government should be in the business of making it easier to vote, not harder,” he said.

Secretary of State Jon Husted and Attorney General Mike DeWine, both Republicans, are named as defendants in the case.

In their opening statement, the state’s attorneys portrayed Ohio as a leader in early voting. They noted that residents have 23 days over a period of four weeks to vote in-person before an election, along with 13 hours on Election Day. Ohioans also can vote by mail.

“It is easy to vote in Ohio,” Steven Voigt, senior assistant attorney general, told the court.

He said experts who will testify on the state’s behalf have found that a higher percentage of blacks voted early in-person during last year’s gubernatorial election than in the previous 2010 midterm election, before the challenged laws were in place. He said that contradicts all the plaintiffs’ claims.

Mr. Voigt argued that Ohio “undeniably” provides extensive opportunities to all residents — including those who might have trouble getting off work to vote.

“Ohio should be commended, [not] sued, for its voting opportunities,” he said.

The lawsuit was filed in May, shortly after Mr. Husted reached a deal in April with the Ohio chapter of the NAACP and other civil rights groups in a separate, long-running dispute over early voting. That case had challenged the early voting hours that Mr. Husted set and the elimination of golden week.

The settlement in the NAACP case expanded the early voting times, but did not reinstate the golden week.

First Published November 17, 2015, 5:00 a.m.