The federal lawsuit challenging Jefferson County Commission districts is set to go to trial Monday, depending on how U.S. District Court Judge Madeline Haikala rules on requests from each side to find in their favor before that.

Plaintiffs in the case argue that commissioners considered race as they redrew district lines, diluting the Black vote and thwarting a possible third majority Black district.

Currently, the Jefferson County Commission is made up of five commissioners. Two of those commissioners — Lashunda Scales and Sheila Tyson — represent majority Black districts.

U.W. Clemon, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said a ruling in their favor could change the political landscape of the commission.

“It could … but it’s not guaranteed,” Clemon said. “Blacks do not make up a majority of the county’s population yet. We’re moving in that direction, but it’s not so yet. We’re only about 43% of the population. If our lawsuit succeeds, Blacks would have an opportunity of choosing the commissioner for a third district.

“What we’re saying is that if the commission had not considered race, the lines would have been drawn differently,” Clemon said, “which would have given Blacks an opportunity to elect a person of their own choosing in the third district.”

One of the key points in a recent hearing before Haikala was that Tyson’s commission district includes more Black residents than required to make it majority Black.

Clemon said commissioners made submissions to the Justice Department indicating that racial considerations were taken into account to comply with the Voting Rights Act when districts were redrawn after the 2020 census.

“That will be the principal proof that we will rely on, in addition to our expert witnesses,” he said.

Taylor Meehan is an attorney representing Jefferson County in the case. She said redistricting cases often become contests between dueling experts.

“In any redistricting case, they tend to boil down to those kinds of Battle of the Experts,” Meehan said. “This is what makes redistricting in some ways frustrating for lawmakers because they’re obviously not drawing districts or adjusting districts. Here, the districts only needed really slight adjustments.”

“Whenever redistricting litigation starts, it becomes kind of a feast for the experts,” she said. “I think in our case, there will be four plaintiff experts who testify. We’ve got one expert on our side. If we do go to trial, most of that trial will be the experts putting up pictures of maps, overlaying municipal boundaries, identifying alternative ways the districts could have been drawn. And then the defense expert gets up and says, ‘You didn’t consider this, or that.’ It’s just a bunch of testimony about GIS data and the alternatives in particular.”

Haikala is considering motions for summary judgment from the respective sides.

“The goal in filing for summary judgment,” Meehan said, “is ordinarily to resolve a case before the time and expense of a trial, where such time and expense is unnecessary.”

Said Clemon: “This case will not be tried before the judge’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment. If the judge grants the motion — grants either the county’s motion for summary judgment or our motion for summary judgment — there’ll be no need for a trial. If she denies the motions, then there will be a need for a trial.”