The Native Hawaiian sovereignty movement picked up steam this year with the publication of a list of 95,000 eligible voters, a positive development toward the self-determination that they deserve.

The people on that list, compiled by the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, would within a matter of months take the long-awaited, critical next step of electing delegates to a constitutional convention. And that would determine what kind of political entity, if any, the Hawaiian community would like to establish.

All of that has been put in limbo with the filing last week of a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the entire enterprise.

The voter roll seems defensible as a free assembly of people in a private, non-governmental group. But the stronger critique of the election is that its organizers are not giving equal access to voting to all Native Hawaiians.

Whether or not that prevails as the winning legal argument in court, that’s a bad precedent, one that should be corrected.

The state Office of Hawaiian Affairs provided funds for the election to one nonprofit, Akamai Foundation, which in turn issued grants to another nonprofit, Na‘i Aupuni, which will oversee the election. This does insulate the process from OHA: The contract under which Na‘i Aupuni was hired precludes OHA from having any control over the election process, said Bill Meheula, an attorney working with Na‘i Aupuni.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court, counter that the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, Akamai Foundation and Na‘i Aupuni are “agents of the state” and that the election is thus subject to constitutional challenge for using race and political qualifications to determine voter eligibility.

Strictly speaking, the OHA grant for this purpose comes not from the state general fund but from the Native Hawaiian Trust Fund, which the OHA trustees manage for the beneficiary class of Native Hawaiians. This arrangement has withstood court challenge.

But the latter element, about the political qualification, is more troubling. Electors who were enrolled by the commission had to sign a statement to “affirm the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people and my intent to participate in the process of self-governance.”

The voter list is a composite, however, of that roll and three previous voter drives, which did not include the same pledge: Kau Inoa, Project Ohana and the Hawaiian Registry.

Proponents say the pledge is there to make the purpose of the convention clear. However, in its meeting with the Honolulu Star-Advertiser editorial board, Na‘i Aupuni leaders asserted that there was no preordained agenda for the convention.

There are Native Hawaiians who argue against self-governance — who defend the status quo, and maintain that Hawaiians are U.S. citizens, period. The pledge certainly makes it sound as if their point of view won’t be represented in the convention.

The Star-Advertiser has supported the concept of Native Hawaiians having control of resources that have been set aside for Hawaii’s indigenous people. The constitutional convention, or aha, that’s being planned has the potential to help them realize that goal.

But if there are to be any discussions around Native Hawaiian sovereignty, they should include all Hawaiian voices seeking to be heard. The convention would be flawed if it excludes those who hold a different perspective.