The primary underpinning of a democracy is the notion that each eligible voter have one voice — one vote — in determining public office holders.

In order to protect the system, it’s important that the state have checks in place to assure that votes are being cast by citizens with residence in the precinct where they’re voting.

So it doesn’t seem onerous or unfair that the state require voters to present photo identification — a driver’s license, for example — when they show up at the poll. There’s really no other way to ascertain that the voters are who they say they are.

This was the basis of Indiana’s 2005 law requiring voters to present government-issued identification at the polls on Election Day. The law seems especially practical when you consider that such a photo ID is required to drive a car, ride an airplane, use a credit card, and essentially function as an active member of society.

Yet, this month, the Indiana Court of Appeals struck down the state’s voter ID law. The three-judge panel ruled that the law could not be implemented evenly because it did not apply to absentee voters.

That’s a good point. But on a practical level, should a solution to one part of a problem be discounted because it’s not a solution to all parts of the problem?

The Court of Appeals ruling was particularly troubling because it came after the law had been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling. Now, Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita has pledged to take the issue to the state Supreme Court, which has the ultimate authority in the case.

“Some continue to force us to use taxpayer dollars on an issue that has already been reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Rokita said in an Associated Press article. “The gamesmanship going on here is irresponsible and needs to stop.”

By “gamesmanship,” Rokita was referring to the political battle over the voter ID law. Republicans tend to favor it; Democrats tend to oppose it.

What’s most important now is that the state Supreme Court take up the matter so that it can be resolved well before the 2010 election, so that voters can be made well aware of the rules of the game.