DAR leaders disband chapter defending women’s membership

After DAR leaders disbanded the Martha Laird Chapter, members face a larger fight over whether the society’s promise of membership to “any woman” still means anything.

Founded in 1890 as a place for women, the Daughters of the American Revolution’s national leadership disbanded the chapter Mollie Hemingway said was leading efforts against what she called the “transing” of DAR, a decision she reported on Oct. 10.:::x https://x.com/MZHemingway/status/2109062460665909427 A user identified as Elsie, replying to Hemingway, wrote that the chapter leading the charge was disbanded the same day¹. DAR was founded in 1890 as a place for women who share a commitment to honoring Revolutionary War patriots and promoting historical preservation². The society’s handbook names its founders as Mary Desha, Eugenia Washington, Ellen Hardin Walworth and Mary Smith Lockwood³. When a national organization answers members who defend women’s membership by eliminating their chapter, every woman in a women’s society has reason to ask whether internal debate is still safe.

The argument did not begin with this week’s post. DAR’s bylaws open their membership rule with the word woman: any woman at least 18 who meets the lineage requirement is eligible⁴. The same bylaws say applicants must be personally acceptable to the chapter. In 2025, the Martha Laird Chapter in Mount Pleasant, Texas, proposed amendments defining an eligible woman as a biological female at conception³. On Feb. 8, 2025, the National Board of Management voted to reject them as “not to be suitable for inclusion into the bylaws and not to be in the best interest of the Society.” The board said DAR would keep accepting state-certified birth certificates and would not require chromosomal DNA tests⁵. A birth-certificate policy does not answer the question the bylaws pose: what does DAR mean when it promises membership to “any woman”? The chapter put that question to national leadership, and leadership rejected the chapter’s answer. A women’s society that cannot say what its own word means has already lost its way.

Feb. 8, 2025The National Board rejects the proposed amendments
JuneA motion to define “woman” in the National Bylaws is not adopted
July 2McDonald’s account describes the requested special meeting
Oct. 10Hemingway reports the chapter’s disbandment
Oct. 11Date set for the requested special meeting

1,481

first tally in McDonald’s reported vote on the resolution

The fight did not end in 2025. At the 135th Continental Congress in June, a motion to define “woman” in the National Bylaws was made and was not adopted. Laura McDonald, who led the effort, says the resolution was rejected by a vote of 1,481 to 984⁷. McDonald’s July 2 account says more than 90 chapters in 33 states requested a special meeting focused solely on the issue, set for Oct. 11. Her account says the National Board placed the resolution on the Continental Congress agenda instead of calling that meeting. The bylaws are clear on the call: “A special meeting also shall be called by the President General upon the written request of thirty or more chapters in at least ten states.” The National Board’s own letter, as McDonald quotes it, says the board has an obligation to ensure that members voting on consequential matters have access to the information they need⁶. That standard applies to every consequential decision about who belongs in a women’s society, and members need a real meeting, not an agenda item, to exercise it.

DAR leadership defends its position on two grounds: its nondiscrimination clause and its long-standing birth-certificate policy⁴. Neither ground answers the question in DAR’s own eligibility rule. A nondiscrimination clause and a birth-certificate policy cannot replace the eligibility language the society wrote for itself. The Center for American Liberty’s memo, as the Washington Times described it, argued that the First Amendment likely protects DAR’s right to limit its membership based on sex and gender identity⁵. Members are entitled to debate that commitment and decide it through a fair process.

Members should hold leadership to that bylaw and press for the meeting. A society founded by women, for women, should stay one, and its bylaws already say so: “Any woman is eligible for membership.”⁴

Laura McDonald's account says the chapters that asked cleared that bar by a wide margin, and that the authors are still waiting for the President General to fulfill her duty to call the meeting. Members should put the demand to her in writing and insist on the thirty days' notice the bylaws require, so every daughter hears what is being decided, not the 3 percent McDonald says were notified before the Congress vote⁶. A women's organization should stay one, and the daughters who built it are entitled to a meeting, a vote and an honest hearing.

DAR leaders disband chapter defending women’s membership

Sources