Regardless of where one stands on the underlying question of membership eligibility, Congress should not dictate the internal membership rules of a private, member-governed patriotic society.

The DAR has nearly 190,000 members. It has elected officers, adopted bylaws, and established procedures for debating and voting on proposed amendments. Earlier this year, voting delegates representing chapters across the country considered a proposed bylaw amendment addressing membership eligibility and voted against adopting it. Whether one agrees with that outcome or not, it was the result of the Society’s own governing process.

DAR members were not denied a voice in that process. Chapters selected delegates, delegates debated the proposal, and the voting body reached a decision. If members believe that decision should be reconsidered, they are not powerless. The bylaws provide mechanisms for chapters to petition for a special meeting, for delegates to debate the issue again, and for the membership to take another vote. That is how a representative, voluntary organization is supposed to govern itself.

Congressional intervention changes the conversation entirely.

A congressional charter recognizes an organization’s national significance, but historically it has not meant that Congress directs the day-to-day governance of private membership organizations. If Congress rewrites the membership qualifications of one congressionally chartered nonprofit, it raises broader questions about the extent of congressional involvement in the internal governance of other congressionally chartered organizations.

The DAR was founded in 1890 and has endured for more than 135 years because it has been governed by its members. Like any large organization, it has experienced disagreement and debate, but it has also developed processes to resolve those disagreements through representative governance. Respecting those processes is essential to preserving the Society’s independence.

This debate has already consumed enormous amounts of time and energy within the DAR. Members joined to promote historic preservation, education, patriotism, and service–not to become another front in America’s political culture wars. Continued federal involvement risks deepening divisions while distracting from the organization’s mission.

Reasonable people can disagree about what the membership requirements should be. Those disagreements are real and deserve respectful discussion. But they should be resolved by the members of the organization through the procedures established in its bylaws–not by Congress rewriting those rules after the fact.

Our nation has long valued the principle of freedom of association because it allows private organizations to establish and govern themselves according to their own rules. Whether the issue is popular or controversial, that principle deserves to be respected.

Congress faces many pressing national priorities. Whatever one’s views on DAR membership policy, the internal governance of a private, member-governed organization is a matter that should be resolved by its members through the procedures established in its bylaws — not by Congress rewriting those rules.

Leslie Inman is a resident of Austin, Texas.