Who Counts as a Daughter? Post 2
Updated: 5 hours ago
What Happened on June 26
Who Counts as a Daughter? Bloodline, Belonging, and the Limits of Reform in the Daughters of the American Revolution · Part 2 · First published 12 October 2026
Updated 22 October 2026
On Friday, June 26, 2026, voting delegates to the DAR's 135th Continental Congress spent nearly 12 hours in Constitution Hall, the Society's auditorium, on a single resolution. It asked them to declare that "woman" in the bylaws means a woman shown female on her original birth certificate.
It failed.
While the following may be a bit cut and dry, it underpins the story. How did this internal dispute travel to the halls of the U.S. Congress within three weeks of a vote? Facts matter and must be correct, or the following posts will not make as much sense.
Now, I know there have been many accounts, stories, and interesting "I was there" commentary. I purposefully left out the hardships someone suffered to cast a ballot in a volunteer organization. While entertaining, pearl-clutching, horrifying, and at times eye-rolling, those hardships are secondary to what actually happened.
This post reconstructs how it got there and what happened that day. Claims are documented unless labeled otherwise; the labels are explained on the Methods page.
How the question reached the floor
The dispute began with a smaller change. On 29 June 2023, delegates amended the membership article of the bylaws, striking a proviso that an applicant be "personally acceptable to the chapter" and adding a non-discrimination clause. Asked from the floor whether the change would admit transgender women, the President General answered that an applicant with a certified birth certificate stating "female" was already eligible. The amendment passed by a rising vote of more than two-thirds; no individual vote count was announced.¹ The Society told reporters that its membership policy had not changed.²
In September 2024, the Martha Laird Chapter of Texas, endorsed by eleven other chapters, proposed amending the bylaws to define a woman by chromosomes and original birth certificate. The National Board of Management rejected that proposal and a related one by ballot in February 2025, keeping its policy of accepting state-certified birth certificates.³
The campaign then turned to another provision. The bylaws require the President General to call a special meeting when thirty or more chapters in at least ten states ask in writing. Requests began arriving in November 2025, asking for a meeting on 11 October 2026, the Society's founding anniversary. On 21 April 2026, the Board recorded requests from sixty-eight chapters in twenty-seven states and designated the chapters' resolution as a Special Order of Business at June's Continental Congress, "in addition to the regular business."⁴ (Campaign leaders gave reporters larger counts: ninety-five chapters in thirty states.⁵) Whether that satisfied the request is now the dispute's central argument.
What the resolution asked
The resolution did not propose amending the bylaws. It asked delegates to interpret them, which under the Society's parliamentary authority requires only a majority, not two-thirds. Its printed text stated that transgender women were not eligible.⁵ One scripted floor speech prepared for its supporters told delegates the opposite: that they could not vote on admitting transgender members, because that would require a bylaw amendment.⁶ Two days before the vote, about two hundred supporters rallied in Washington to practice parliamentary procedure and talking points.⁷
The day itself
According to the President General's later message, as quoted by her opponents, the assembly suspended its standing rules so debate could run well past the usual twenty minutes, to nearly three hours, and chose a secret paper ballot counted in open session before six observers, three from each side.⁸ Delegates who left the hall could not return while the question was pending, per Robert's Rules of Order.⁹
The first ballot was never completed. According to a member I interviewed, collection stopped after reports that ballots had stuck together, voters had changed seats, and credentials might have been shared with nonvoters; they discarded the ballots already collected (Testimony).¹⁰ A second ballot was taken section by section, and delegates' voter ribbons were snipped after they voted. The revote took about three hours, and the final tally was announced after 8 p.m.⁹
The count
The Society has not published an official tally. I use 1,474 opposed and 981 in favor, with 2,455 ballots cast, as multiple delegates in the hall told me this was the final count. WORLD printed those figures, attributing them to Barbara Wells, a director of the pro-resolution campaign's nonprofit.⁹ A parliamentary opinion commissioned by the campaign gives the same numbers,⁴ as does a chapter regent's message sent from the hall minutes after the announcement (Testimony).¹⁰ Voting strength that morning was reported to be 2,824 registered delegates.¹¹ Reports of "more than 3,000" in the hall include members who weren't voting, since not all Continental Congress attendees were delegates allowed to vote.¹²
The next morning, a different figure, 1,481 to 984, appeared, attributed to campaign founder Laura McDonald, and became the number most outlets covering the pro-resolution campaign used.¹³ This will be discussed in full later.
Afterward
The President General asked members to respect the delegates' "considered judgment."¹⁴ McDonald told WORLD the campaign got the vote it asked for; it just didn't go their way.⁹ On August 6, the President General told state and chapter officers she would not call an October meeting, reasoning that the question had been fully decided in June.¹⁵ The campaign answered with two parliamentarians' opinions concluding that her duty remained unperformed,⁴ ¹⁶ and in September members filed a formal grievance against Society leadership.¹⁷
Update, October 22, 2026. Two additional documents need further consideration for this post. First, after rereading the special-meeting provision in the Society's 2025 Bylaws. Article VIII, Section 7 provides that a special meeting "shall be called by the President General upon the written request of thirty or more chapters in at least ten states," requires at least thirty days' notice, and limits the meeting to the business named in the call. It sets no deadline for calling one, and that is the center of the dispute described above.¹⁸ Second, the restoration campaign released a legal memorandum dated October 12 from the law firm Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak. It argues that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in handling the special-meeting requests and the June vote, outlines a lawsuit to compel a special meeting, and urges members to support H.R. 9701.¹⁹ The bylaws require a member to submit a grievance in writing at least nine months before taking legal action; the memo reads that rule as grounds for discipline rather than a bar to suit.¹⁸ My post on the Martha Laird Chapter looks at the memo in detail.
Notes
National Society Daughters of the American Revolution, "132nd Continental Congress, Thursday Business Session," 29 June 2023, video, YouTube, 2:24:55, https://www.youtube.com/live/SsvXtKnLtOw; author's transcription.
Maura Zurick, "Daughters of the American Revolution Members Quit Over Transgender Fears," Newsweek, 26 July 2023, updated 2 August 2023, https://www.newsweek.com/daughters-american-revolution-must-accept-transgender-members-1815641.
Kendall Tietz, "Daughters of the American Revolution Votes to Continue to Allow Transgender Members," Fox News, 12 February 2025, https://www.foxnews.com/media/daughters-american-revolution-votes-continue-allow-transgender-members.
C. J. Cavin, parliamentary opinion on the chapter-requested special meeting of the NSDAR, 14 August 2026, posted 28 September 2026, https://daughtersadvocatingrestoration.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-8-14-Opinion-on-NSDAR-Chapter-Requested-Special-Meeting.pdf.
Valerie Richardson, "Daughters of the American Revolution, Transgender Heading for Showdown at Annual Meeting," Washington Times, 24 June 2026, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jun/24/transgender-showdown-looms-daughters-american-revolutions-annual/.
"PRI Debate Points," scripted floor speeches supporting the resolution, n.d. [PDF created 27 May 2026], 2026, formerly posted on the Daughters Advocating for Restoration website; copy in author's possession.
Skye Graham, "Hundreds Rally to Preserve Daughters of the American Revolution for Actual Women," The Federalist, 25 June 2026, https://thefederalist.com/2026/06/25/hundreds-rally-to-preserve-daughters-of-the-american-revolution-for-actual-women/.
[Bonnie Dennis], "Bylaws Are Not Suggestions: Rebuttal to PG Announcement," n.d. [PDF created 13 August 2026], https://daughtersadvocatingrestoration.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Bylaws-are-not-suggestions-Rebuttal-to-PG-Announcement.pdf.
Harrison Watters, "A Dividing Line for Daughters of the American Revolution," WORLD, 1 July 2026, corrected 2 July 2026, https://wng.org/roundups/a-dividing-line-for-daughters-of-the-american-revolution-1783019427.
Member of the DAR, interview by the author.
Comments on Carmen Eckard, "REGARDING DAR: I've been talking to people and researching this for days . . . ," Facebook, 26 September 2026, https://www.facebook.com/carmen.eckard.
Hanna Jones, "Hold the Line: Tradition vs. Trans-Formation in the DAR," IW Features, 20 August 2026, https://www.iwfeatures.com/commentary/hold-the-line-tradition-vs-trans-formation-in-the-dar/, originally published in Townhall, 15 August 2026.
Valerie Richardson, "Daughters of American Revolution Assembly Defeats Proposal to Block Transgender Members," Washington Times, 27 June 2026, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jun/27/daughters-american-revolution-defeats-proposal-block-transgender/.
Jordan Boyd, "Daughters of the American Revolution Betrays Its Mission by Rejecting Resolution to Keep Its Ranks Female," The Federalist, 29 June 2026, https://thefederalist.com/2026/06/29/daughters-of-the-american-revolution-betrays-its-mission-by-rejecting-resolution-to-keep-its-ranks-female/.
Jordan Boyd, "Daughters of American Revolution President Squashes Another Attempt to Preserve the Org's Female-Only Charge," The Federalist, 7 August 2026, https://thefederalist.com/2026/08/07/daughters-of-american-revolution-president-squashes-another-attempt-to-preserve-the-orgs-female-only-charge/.
Timothy Wynn, "Parliamentary Opinion for Daughters Advocating for Restoration," 13 August 2026, posted 2 September 2026, https://daughtersadvocatingrestoration.org/professional-parliamentarian-opinion-part-1/.
Bonnie Morgan Dennis, "I want to inform you that members of DAR from multiple chapters across many states have joined together to file a formal grievance . . . ," Facebook, Daughters Advocating for Restoration group, 11 September 2026, https://www.facebook.com/groups/1659132851538607.
National Society Daughters of the American Revolution, Bylaws of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution (2025), art. VIII, sec. 7, p. 22; art. XIX, sec. 6, p. 42.
Palmer Williams, Brandon Smith, and Andy Wilson, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC, to Daughters Advocating for Restoration Executive Committee, memorandum, "Legal Implications of Restricting Daughters of the American Revolution Membership Eligibility to Biological Females," 12 October 2026, released 20 October 2026, on the Daughters Advocating for Restoration Facebook page.