The Michigan Supreme Court, in a party-line vote (with Republicans in the majority), ruled today that the state's voter i.d. law was constitutional. The law was challenged on the grounds that it amounted to a constructive illegal "poll tax" because of the difficulty that many poor and elderly (and, not coincidentally, Democratic-leaning) voters might have in obtaining suitable identification.

As a matter of constitutional law, the state is only allowed to impose a restriction on voting, such as Michigan's i.d. requirement, if there is a "compelling state interest" in requiring voters to show identification. That "interest," in this case, is the potential for vote-fraud -- a largely Republican concoction that has been shown to be largely non-existent by various studies.

As dissapointing as the ruling itself is the fact that it came down in a party-line vote, with Republican judges finding the i.d. requirement legal, and Democrats finding it illegal. While elections are inherently political, politics has no place in election ADMINISTRATION. Since the Supreme Court split along ideological lines in Bush v. Gore in 2000, the debate surrounding how this country can best conduct elections has been a partisan one, causing the public's confidence in the electoral process to dwindle.

The Supreme Court will rule definitively on voter identification at some point soon...hopefully they will rule the right way, finding that voter i.d. laws supress more votes than they protect. However they rule, let's hope it's not a 5-4 decision split along ideological lines.