Among his many writings, Voltaire had this favorite maxim: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

That cautionary note fits to a T the legislation known as the Akaka bill.

The Akaka bill, which would enable the re-forming of a Native Hawaiian government with a measure of sovereignty, has been buffeted by political winds for about a decade. It was first the subject of hearings in the Islands before it passed the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000; it has never passed the U.S. Senate.

The latest form of the bill, re-introduced last week, mirrors the 2000 version, and not the more constrained edition that emerged, battle-scarred, from encounters with the Bush administration.

Its chief sponsor, U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, wanted to restore the bill to a less restrictive form, given that the Obama administration is far more sympathetic to the idea of self-determination for indigenous people of Hawai'i.

But proponents have to be ready to deal on aspects that were stumbling blocks for Republicans leery of the bill. The election in November brought in more Democrats to fill seats, but it also saw the departure of more moderate Republicans who had been allies.

So getting the required 60 votes to avoid a Senate filibuster is not guaranteed. Some compromise may be necessary — and should be considered — to get the bill through Congress.

For instance, the previous administration wanted language that specifically excluded Native Hawaiians from launching gambling operations similar to those allowed for Native American tribes. It also excluded Hawaiians from federal funds earmarked for Native Americans.

That language has been stripped from this bill, under the assumption that gambling is banned in Hawai'i anyway. But bill backers should allow Native Hawaiians to be excluded from operating casinos and from Native American benefits; those provisions may assure support from House and Senate members in states affected by those issues.

Similarly, the new bill eliminates assurances that Native Hawaiians would come under the same criminal and civil court jurisdiction as other Hawai'i residents. But those assurances were reasonable: The state government is almost sure to insist that the native and non-native populations, which are intertwined, be subject to the same laws.

Native Hawaiians are less likely to bend on other points, such as the way their member class is defined. Most would be forced under the present bill to document their descent from indigenous people at the time of the overthrow, and some lack the birth registration records they'd need. That rule should be relaxed.

What's most important is that those who rightly see the Akaka bill as a means to settling long-standing injustices be willing to unify behind the measure without breaking apart over its lesser provisions. If the Akaka bill can't be passed in some form under the current, near-ideal political conditions, it might never become law.

Losing this legal safeguard for Native Hawaiian lands, rights and resources would be a misfortune for all who want to see Hawai'i's host people given the political status they, like all indigenous Americans, deserve.