It’s important to understand what did and did not happen at the 135th Continental Congress. The DAR did not vote to amend the National Bylaws to allow biological males to be eligible for membership.
Instead, a motion was made to adopt a resolution that sought to define the word woman in our National Bylaws. This resolution was not adopted.
The vote that took place last week was supposed to happen on October 11, 2026, at a special meeting of the society, separate and apart from any regular meeting, and called by over 90 chapters in 33 states, to focus solely on this issue.
Robert’s Rules of Order 9:13 specifically states that
“A special meeting (or a called meeting) is a separate session of a society held at a time different from that of any regular meeting, and convened only to consider one or more items of business specified in the call of the meeting. Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting, clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up, must be sent to all members a reasonable number of days in advance.”
Article VIII, Section 7of the NSDAR National Bylaws states that:
“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. Not less than thirty days’ notice of a special meeting shall be given and only that business specified in the call may be transacted.”
Instead of calling the special meeting for the requested date, the National Board of Management added this as an agenda item for Continental Congress, bypassing the requirement that 100% of the membership must be notified about this resolution.
As a result, only about 3% of the membership were notified, and many members were confused and pre-occupied with Congress activities.
At the 135th Continental Congress the NSDAR National Board of Management provided a letter to members that states “As part of its fiduciary duties owed to NSDAR, the National Board of Management has an obligation to ensure that members voting on consequential matters have access to information necessary to fully exercise that responsibility.”
However, members were presented with only a one-sided, 3-page legal opinion from attorney Samuel R. Bagenstos and were prohibited from reading, quoting, referencing or relying upon any other legal opinion.
In January of 2025, the NDSAR received a 14-page legal memo from the now Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Harmeet Dhillon, through her nonprofit, The Center for American Liberty.
In the opinion, Ms. Dhillon and attorney Mark Trammell give strong evidence and case law showing that the DAR is within its First Amendment Rights to maintain the organization as one for biological women.
This opinion was not offered to members with Mr. Bagenstose’s opinion.
Mr. Bagenstos, however, claims that the DAR is a place of public accommodation and therefor subject to the provisions of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977 and that this trumps the DAR’s First Amendment Right to define membership eligibility.
His opinion also makes the claim that “the DAR has permitted transgender women to become members for decades.”
Mr. Bagenstose’s opinion leaves out key components of the DCHRA, notably “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to supersede any federal rule, regulation or act.” (§2-1401.03. (c))
He also fails to reconcile how excluding transgender individuals would violate the DHRA, but how excluding men (sex as a protected trait), would not.
State and National Officers effectively told members that the DAR does not have a First Amendment Right to define membership eligibility.
By not providing an alternative opinion, we feel as though our officers’ Fiduciary Duty to make sure members are informed was breached.
During the proceedings, a member asked the Executive Board how many of these individuals are members of the DAR. The response by the Registrar General is that the DAR does not keep records of sex/gender.
A follow up question was asked as to how attorney Samuel R. Bagenstos can make the claim that “the DAR has permitted transgender women to become members for decades”?
The response from the Registrar General was that this is based on anecdotal evidence.
The takeaway is that the National Board of Management provided a one-sided legal opinion, and established strict rules that it was the only one to be considered, and yet when pressed, we are told it is based solely on anecdotal evidence.
As a result, the delegates present at the 135th Continental Congress did not adopt the resolution.
We are still waiting for the President General to fulfill her duty to call a Special Meeting scheduled for October 11, 2026, in which all members must be notified of this resolution pursuant to Article VIII, Section 7 of the NSDAR National Bylaws and Robert’s Rules of Order 9:13.
At this meeting we hope to be able to present a differing opinion so that members can make informed decisions.
No Responses