How this score is worked out
Seven kinds of act move this number, and they do not count equally. A recorded vote counts 3, and so does authoring a bill or signing an executive action; signing on to somebody else’s bill counts 2. A statement or a questionnaire answer counts 2 as well, and an organisational endorsement counts 1. A vote takes its direction from the bill, whose effect is set out in advance; the rest take it from our reading of what was said, and each one below shows that reading and the reason for it. Acts shown with no number were examined and deliberately left out of the arithmetic, with a reason given.
- 2025-08-29 cosponsorship — MORE Act (119th Congress), counted as +2 at weight 2
- 2024-06-27 cosponsorship — MORE Act (118th Congress), counted as +2 at weight 1.2
- 2024-06-04 vote — Mast amendment on Veterans Affairs forms, counted as +1 at weight 1.8
- 2024-01-31 statement — Defended city ordinances that end arrests for low-level marijuana possession, saying local resources should not go to chasing low-level pot offenses, counted as +2 at weight 1.2
- 2023-11-29 statement — His campaign site states that he supports legalizing marijuana and expunging past records, counted as +2 at weight 1.2
- 2022-01-27 statement — His campaign site pledged to work to pass the MORE Act, describing it as legislation that will legalize marijuana and expunge past records, counted as +2 at weight 1.2
Average on the −2 to +2 scale: 1.791. Full method and the bill table.
-
Said2022-01-27
The issues page of his campaign site, under the heading Criminal Justice Reform, stated: "He will fight to pass the MORE Act that will legalize marijuana, expunge past records, and ensure that new funds go to mental health and substance use services."
⚠️The page carries no date. The date is the earliest Internet Archive capture of the page (2026-10-17 check of the Archive index), and the sentence is already present in it, so it may have been published earlier. This wording was from his 2022 campaign, when he ran in what was then District 35; the page has since been rewritten (see the later act).
-
Vote2023-07-27
Recorded Nay on House Roll Call 380, on passage of H.R. 4366, making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024. The bill passed 219 to 211. The version the House passed contains section 421, which came from an amendment offered on 2023-07-26 by Representative Brian Mast of Florida, printed as No. 36 in House Report 118-158, that was agreed to by voice vote, so no individual position was recorded on the amendment itself.
Section 421 provides that "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 the policy stating that "VHA providers are prohibited from completing forms or registering Veterans for participation in a State-approved marijuana program".
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but not counted in the score: This site deliberately does not score this vote (Passage of H.R. 4366, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill for fiscal 2024), so it moves no number.
Why this vote is not scored
The bill the House passed on 2023-07-27 (H.R. 4366: www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr4366eh/html/BILLS-118hr4366eh.htm) carried section 421, barring the Department of Veterans Affairs from spending that Act's funds to enforce Veterans Health Directive 1315 as it relates to the policy that "VHA providers are prohibited from completing forms or registering Veterans for participation in a State-approved marijuana program".
That section arrived as amendment 36 in House Report 118-158 (Mast of Florida), and the House took no recorded vote on it: rolls 372 to 378 of 2023 record votes on amendments 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 to this bill, and 36 is absent from that sequence. The only roll call touching it is roll 380, On Passage of the whole Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, 219 to 211 - a vote on military construction accounts, VA funding levels and every other rider in the bill, on which no member was given an opportunity to vote on the cannabis language by itself.
The Clerk's totals are Republican 219-2 and Democratic 0-209, and among the Texans holding this act the split is party-line without a single crossover, where the Blumenauer cannabis amendment of House Roll Call 174 of 2020 splits the delegation within party. Treated the same way as H.R. 5371 and H.R. 6500: shown on each member's page as evidence without moving their score. This is not the H.R. 8580 situation, where the recorded vote was the cannabis amendment.
Recorded here so that a future sweep does not score it.
-
Said2023-11-29
The issues page of his campaign site states: "Casar ended all arrests and citations for personal marijuana use in Austin and helped support policies that reduced these arrests in San Antonio and San Marcos. He supports legalizing marijuana, expunging past records, and ensuring that new funds go to mental health and substance use services."
⚠️The page carries no date. The date is the earliest Internet Archive capture found to contain these sentences (2023-11-29); the two captures before it (2023-03-27 and 2023-07-01) are near-empty page shells that cannot show whether the text was there earlier. The same sentences were on the live page when this site read it on 2026-10-17.
-
Said2024-01-31
Issued a statement from his congressional office on 2024-01-31 responding to the Texas Attorney General's lawsuits against Austin, San Marcos, Killeen, Elgin and Denton over local ordinances ending marijuana arrests. He said: "Local resources should go to keeping people safe, not chasing people down for low level pot offenses. Our local policies are perfectly legal: we stopped wasting taxpayer dollars to test alleged marijuana for its THC content".
He also said: "Our communities have made it clear: they support smart policies that promote justice". The release adds that in 2020, as an Austin City Council member, he authored an ordinance ending enforcement of low-level marijuana possession.
⚠️Omitted: the second quoted sentence continues with a remark about the Attorney General, and the statement ends with a rhetorical question about him. Neither is reproduced here because each characterises a named person; the release is linked in full.
-
Vote2024-06-04
Recorded Aye on House Roll Call 240, the Mast amendment to H.R. 8580 allowing Department of Veterans Affairs staff to complete forms for veterans in state-approved medical marijuana programs; the amendment was agreed to, 290 Yeas to 116 Nays.
-
Coauthored2024-06-27
Became a cosponsor of H.R. 5601, the MORE Act, on 2024-06-27.
-
Vote2025-06-25
Recorded Nay on House Roll Call 182 of 2025-06-25, on passage of H.R. 3944, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026. The bill passed 218 Yeas to 206 Nays. The version the House passed contains section 421, added on the floor the same day by an amendment offered by Representative David Joyce of Ohio that was agreed to by voice vote, so no individual positions were recorded on the amendment itself.
Section 421 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.
It also does not appear in the enacted text of Public Law 119-37, the law the bill was ultimately folded into.
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.
-
Coauthored2025-08-29
Became an original cosponsor of H.R. 5068, the MORE Act, on 2025-08-29.
-
Vote2025-11-12
On 2025-11-12 the U.S. House took roll call 285 on H R 5371, the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026, on the question the Clerk prints as "On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment". The motion passed 222-209, with 2 members not voting, and the bill became Public Law 119-37. They voted Nay. The Senate amendment being concurred in was the text that contained section 781, the federal hemp redefinition; the version the House had passed in September contained no hemp language.
Section 781 of that law rewrites the federal definition of hemp in section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1639o), effective 365 days after enactment: it measures the 0.3 percent limit as total tetrahydrocannabinols including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, excludes cannabinoids that cannot be naturally produced by the plant or that were synthesized or manufactured outside it, and caps final consumer hemp-derived cannabinoid products at 0.4 milligrams per container of total tetrahydrocannabinols plus other cannabinoids with similar effects.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: Shown but not scored. Roll call 285 was a motion to concur in a Senate amendment to a whole government funding act, and no member could vote on the hemp language in it separately, so a Yea or a Nay here is a position on federal funding rather than a recorded position on hemp. The same treatment is applied to every other omnibus funding vote on this site. What the law did is described above; the vote is left in the record and out of the arithmetic.
-
Vote2026-01-08
Recorded Yea on House Roll Call 5, the question the Clerk records as "On Retaining Division A" of H.R. 6938, the division that became the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026 and that carries Sec. 531, barring Department of Justice funds from being used, with respect to Texas and 46 other States, "to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana", along with Sec.
530 on industrial hemp research; Division A was retained, 375 Yeas to 47 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 retain the whole Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies division of H.R. 6938 - the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce, NASA and the National Science Foundation - and the medical-marijuana rider at Sec. 531 was one provision inside it. This is the narrowest recorded House vote available on a division carrying that rider, which is why it is shown; it is still not a vote on the rider, so reading a cannabis position out of it would not be fair to the member.
-
Vote2026-01-08
Recorded Yea on House Roll Call 7, the question the Clerk records as "On Passage" of H.R. 6938, the Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026, which became Public Law 119-74 on 23 January 2026 and whose Division A carries Sec. 531, barring Department of Justice funds from being used, with respect to Texas and 46 other States, "to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana"; the bill passed, 397 Yeas to 28 Nays.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: An omnibus vote, printed but not scored. The question was final passage of H.R. 6938, a three-division appropriations package covering Commerce, Justice and Science; Energy and Water Development; and the Interior and Environment. The medical-marijuana rider at Sec. 531 and the industrial-hemp-research rider at Sec. 530 rode inside it, and a Yea or Nay here is a position on the package, not on either rider.
-
Vote2026-01-14
Recorded as Not Voting on House Roll Call 28 of 2026-01-14, on passage of H.R. 7006, the Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026. The bill passed 341 Yeas to 79 Nays. The version the House passed contains section 809, which reads in part: "None of the Federal funds contained in this Act may be 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 (21 U.S.C.
801 et seq.) or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative." Marijuana is a schedule I substance under that Act. The same restriction appears as section 809 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, Public Law 119-75.
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.
-
Vote2026-01-22
Recorded Nay on House Roll Call 45, the question the Clerk records as "On Passage" of H.R. 7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, 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 bill passed, 341 Yeas to 88 Nays.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: An omnibus vote, printed but not scored. The question was final passage of H.R. 7148, a package of ten divisions covering Defense; Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education; Transportation and Housing; Financial Services and General Government; National Security and the Department of State; and more. The schedule I and tetrahydrocannabinols rider at Sec. 809 sat in one of those divisions, and a Yea or Nay here is a position on the package, not on the rider.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Vote2026-09-01
Recorded Nay 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.