Distinctly separate yet umbilically linked, two current efforts toward Native Hawaiian self-determination are at critical junctures. How proponents — or opponents — of each fare will set the future path for Hawaii’s indigenous people, as well as the entire state of Hawaii. Pivotal events hinge on engagement today.

The two issues: Na‘i Aupuni’s election of delegates to a Native Hawaiian constitutional convention, the aha; and the rule-making process for a nation-to-nation relationship between the U.S. Department of the Interior and a future Native Hawaiian government.

The aha has captured much of the recent attention, thanks to a lawsuit by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii to stop it; the suit has seen success so far.

The case has caught the eye of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has ordered a halt in certifying the aha delegate voting results until Grassroot’s suit is adjudicated in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The key issue: Whether the aha delegate election, because it is funded by a grant from the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs to the nonprofit Na‘i Aupuni, is a race-based vote improperly funded by state money.

The election of delegates for the aha represents the best opportunity yet to gather a wide diversity of Native Hawaiians’ perspectives, and to merge those views via consensus, into a self-governing body.

The aha, targeted for spring 2016, is likely to be raucous, but the beauty of it lies in the process itself: Native Hawaiians coming together to hash out, or at least agree to disagree, on a way forward.

But the Supreme Court’s stay on delegate certification, pending the appellate court’s ruling, throws the process into unwelcome limbo. Further, Na‘i Aupuni itself caused harm to the aha’s integrity when it unilaterally extended the deadline to vote for delegates past the Nov. 30 deadline, until Dec. 21.

Disturbingly, any change to the ground rules of any legitimate election only undermines credibility and raises suspicions. This was no exception, fueling skepticism among many Native Hawaiians that Na‘i Aupuni, far from the neutral entity it claims to be, favors the nation-to-nation model proffered by the federal government.

Compared with the drama around Na‘i Aupuni and the aha, the federal rule-making process toward a nation-to-nation relationship has gotten little attention — unfortunate, given the momentous door it would open for Native Hawaiians’ self-determination. Bundled in this process are long- sought goals of the erstwhile “Akaka Bill” — generally speaking, official recognition of a special political and trust relationship between the U.S. government and Native Hawaiians, if they can form a unified government.

The federal government’s proposed rules resulted from more than 5,000 comments received in 2014, when the Department of the Interior held a series of contentious hearings in Hawaii.

It’s important to remember that those hearings and today’s proposed rules advance milestones such as the 1993 Apology Resolution, in which the U.S. apologized to Native Hawaiians for its role in the overthrow, and committed the federal government to a process of reconciliation. And in 2000, the Interior and Justice departments recommended the fostering of Native Hawaiian self-determination under federal law.

“Such self-government,” says the Interior Department, “provides many native populations enhanced economic development and greater ability to preserve their distinctive cultures and traditions.”

That pathway is not a done deal, however. The proposed rules require feedback, and need support, through a public comment period that ends Dec. 30 (see www.doi.gov/ohr or imuahawaii.org).

Yes, the aha remains in limbo. But the public has a rare opportunity this month to weigh in on behalf of Hawaii’s indigenous people and culture, in the interest of perpetuation. Let that voice be heard.