WeedVoter

Christian Dashaun Menefee Democrat

US House, District 18

About this race: A US House seat on the 120th Congress map, covering part of south Harris County and part of east Fort Bend County. No cannabis or hemp record was found for any candidate on this ballot, in Congress or in the Texas Legislature. Each was checked against the sources listed on their pages.

Which map this is. This seat is drawn on the 120th Congress map, the one on the 3 November ballot. Measured by area — not by population — 26% of it was inside district 18 on the 119th Congress map, which stands until the end of 2026; the rest came from district 9 (61%) and district 29 (13%). So where a candidate below is badged as holding seat 18 today, that badge means the seat number on this ballot — not all of the ground the seat now covers. Your own district may have changed number without your address changing. Check your own address in the district finder.

Christian Dashaun MenefeeDemocratHolds seat 18 today

No score: the 4 records below carry no direction this site is willing to score — an abstention, a vote on a bill whose effect on legal access is genuinely arguable, or a statement that names no position. They are shown in full so you can read them and judge for yourself.

  • Vote2026-02-03

    Recorded Nay on House Roll Call 53, the question the Clerk records as "On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments" to H.R. 7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, which became Public Law 119-75 on 3 February 2026 and whose Division E carries Sec. 809, barring Federal funds in that Act from being used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation "to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act" or "or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative"; the motion was agreed to, 217 Yeas to 214 Nays.

    WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: An omnibus vote, printed but not scored. The question was whether to concur in the Senate amendments to the whole of H.R. 7148, the ten-division package that became Public Law 119-75; the schedule I and tetrahydrocannabinols rider at Sec. 809 was one provision in its Financial Services and General Government division. It is shown separately from the 22 January passage vote because several members are recorded differently on the two questions, and merging them into one number would hide that.

    A Yea or Nay here is a position on the package, not on the rider.

    clerk.house.gov, govinfo.gov

  • Vote2026-05-15

    Recorded Yea on House Roll Call 175 of 2026-05-15, on passage of H.R. 8469, making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027. The bill passed 400 Yeas to 15 Nays. The version the House passed contains section 420, added on the floor on 2026-05-14 by House Amendment 216, offered by Representative Brian Mast of Florida and agreed to by voice vote, so no individual positions were recorded on the amendment itself.

    Section 420 reads in part: "None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Veterans Affairs in this Act may be used to enforce Veterans Health Directive 1315 as it relates to-- (1) the policy stating that ``VHA providers are prohibited from completing forms or registering Veterans for participation in a State-approved marijuana program''". The section appears in the engrossed House text and does not appear in the version reported to the House.

    WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: Stance left at zero on purpose. This was a vote on a whole appropriations bill running to hundreds of pages and covering entire departments. The cannabis-related language is one section inside it, and no member could vote on that section separately, so a Yea or a Nay here does not show what a member thinks about cannabis. The vote is recorded because it is a dated federal action on a bill that carried cannabis-related language, not because it measures a cannabis position.

    clerk.house.gov, govinfo.gov, govinfo.gov

  • Vote2026-06-04

    Recorded Nay on House Roll Call 205 of 2026-06-04, on passage of H.R. 8646, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2027. The bill passed 213 Yeas to 210 Nays. The bill contains section 737, which provides that none of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act may be used "to prohibit the transportation, processing, sale, or use of hemp, or seeds of such plant, that is grown or cultivated in accordance with section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 or subtitle G of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, within or outside the State in which the hemp is grown or cultivated."

    The section appears in the text reported to the House as well as in the engrossed text, so it was not added on the floor.

    WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: Stance left at zero on purpose. This was a vote on a whole appropriations bill running to hundreds of pages and covering entire departments. The cannabis-related language is one section inside it, and no member could vote on that section separately, so a Yea or a Nay here does not show what a member thinks about cannabis. The vote is recorded because it is a dated federal action on a bill that carried cannabis-related language, not because it measures a cannabis position.

    clerk.house.gov, govinfo.gov

  • Vote2026-09-01

    Recorded Yea on House Roll Call 286 of 2026-09-01, on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 6500, the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027. The motion passed 370 Yeas to 48 Nays and the bill was signed on 2026-09-02 as Public Law 119-103. Section 2019 of that law delays most of the new federal hemp definition enacted a year earlier: "Until December 11, 2026, the amendments made by section 781 of division B of Public Law 119-37 (7 U.S.C.

    1639o note) shall only apply with respect to products described in paragraphs (1)(C)(ii)(I) and (1)(C)(iv)(I) of section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1639o) (as amended by such section 781)." The effect is that from 2026-11-12 until 2026-12-11 the new definition reaches only products containing cannabinoids that are not capable of being naturally produced by a cannabis plant; the rest of the new definition, including the 0.3 percent total-tetrahydrocannabinols test and the 0.4 milligram per container cap, begins on 2026-12-11.

    WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: Stance left at zero on purpose. H.R. 6500 was a government-funding bill: it continued federal appropriations for fiscal year 2027 and carried dozens of unrelated extensions. The hemp provision, section 2019, was one section inside it, and the House voted on the whole package under suspension of the rules, so no member could vote on the hemp language separately. A Yea or Nay here does not show what a member thinks about hemp, and the Nays came from both parties.

    The vote is recorded because it is the dated federal action that moved the hemp deadline, not because it measures a cannabis position.

    clerk.house.gov, govinfo.gov

See the whole US House, District 18 race, including every opponent →

Who is paying for this campaign

Campaign finance — Federal Election Commission

Commission candidate H6TX18232, filed as “MENEFEE, CHRISTIAN”, principal committee C00899831 (CHRISTIAN D. MENEFEE FOR CONGRESS). fec.gov

Everything below covers the reporting period that ended 2026-06-30, as filed with the Commission. These figures lag the filing deadlines: money raised after that date does not appear until the next report is due, so a recent contribution is not missing, it is not yet reportable.

What we could and could not put a label on

Fraction classified: 0.21%. We examined $1,202,680 — the 88 largest employer groupings ($932,040) and 60 committee contributions ($270,640) the Commission shows for this committee — and matched $2,500 of it to one of our own patterns. $1,200,180 is listed above as unclassified.

What that figure is not. $1,202,680 is what we examined, not everything this campaign raised: the Commission returns the largest employer groupings rather than every contribution, and contributions too small to be itemised carry no employer at all. Read the classified fraction as a share of what we looked at.

Any grouping of contributors into an industry is weedvoter’s own classification, applied to employer and committee names exactly as filed. The Commission publishes employers and committees; it never publishes industries. OpenSecrets discontinued its public interface in April 2025, so nothing here is an OpenSecrets classification.

Money received is not a position. Everything on this card is money that changed hands. It is not evidence that any contribution influenced any decision, nothing on it is placed beside a roll call, and we make no claim about anyone’s motive. For what Christian Dashaun Menefee has actually done about cannabis, read the record above on this page — the roll calls, the bills that carry their name, and the date of each one, every entry linked to the document it came from. That is the part of this page built to be judged, and it is the part the score is calculated from. No contribution on this card moves that score by a cent.