WeedVoter

Joe Paz Herrera Democrat

Texas Senate, District 24

About this race: Part of Williamson County and a wide stretch of central Texas. The incumbent cosponsored the medical expansion and voted for the hemp restrictions at every stage.

Whose record this page shows. The paragraph above is about the race, and part of it describes a different person. Everything after this line on this page is Joe Paz Herrera’s own record and nothing else — including, where it says so, the finding that no record was located. Every record the paragraph above describes is set out candidate by candidate on the Texas Senate, District 24 race page.

Joe Paz HerreraDemocrat
94/100 support for legal access — top band, 67 to 100 thin — one or two records produced this number · 2 of 3 records scored
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.

  • 2026-10-05 questionnaire — Chose "Strongly Support" on maintaining a legal, regulated hemp marketplace, "Yes" on regulation being preferable to prohibition, "Strongly Support" on hemp agriculture and on evidence-based regulation, and answered that further regulation is "Not a priority absent demonstrated problems requiring legislative action". The written answers set out an age-21, licensing, testing and labelling framework rather than any reduction in lawful access, counted as +2 at weight 2
  • 2019-12-31 questionnaire — A stated commitment to support or sponsor a bill changing Texas marijuana law, in answer to a question about legalisation especially for medical use, counted as +1 at weight 0.6

Average on the −2 to +2 scale: 1.769. Full method and the bill table.

  • Questionnaire2019-12-31

    In a Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey he recounted a voter asking, on behalf of her veteran husband, "if I would consider supporting the legalization of Marijuana, especially for medical use", and answered: "I sent the nice lady an email committing to support or sponsor a bill in support of changing our laws on Marijuana use, and I was lucky enough to see her a few months later at an event and I told her how here story and the passion in her voice when she told me her story truly inspired me."

    ⚠️Ballotpedia states the year of this survey but not the day or month, so it is dated to the end of the stated year rather than to the date this site read the page, which would have made it look four years more recent than it is.

    ballotpedia.org

  • Questionnaire2023-12-31

    In a later Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey he returned to the same encounter: "Yes, during my first campaign I heard from a potential voter who was very passionate about legalizing cannabis for medical use, and pain management. At the time, I did not have an opinion on the matter. After I heard her story, visited with here a few times and did a ton of research on the topic I was able to speak in a much more educated way on the topic."

    ⚠️Ballotpedia states the year but not the day or month, so it is dated to the end of the stated year.

    WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: Describes becoming better informed on the subject without stating where he came down. Shown, not scored.

    ballotpedia.org

  • Questionnaire2026-10-05

    Answered the Texas Hemp Business Council’s 2026 candidate questionnaire, saying Texas should have a responsible hemp industry under a clear regulatory framework rather than eliminate lawful businesses. The Texas Hemp Business Council is a hemp industry trade group; it put twenty questions to 223 candidates for the Texas Legislature and statewide office and publishes the answers it receives in full, without editing. These are the candidate’s own words, submitted by the candidate.

    The council prints the name as "Joe P. Herrera"; this guide uses the spelling on the Secretary of State’s certified list. Asked about the future of hemp in Texas, the answer opened: "Texas should have a responsible hemp industry that supports farmers, small businesses, and consumer choice while putting public safety first. I do not support an unregulated market for intoxicating products, nor do I believe responsible businesses should be eliminated because of bad actors."

    The same answer went on: "I would support a clear regulatory framework that limits intoxicating THC products to adults 21 and older, requires licensing and independent product testing, establishes reasonable potency and serving limits, and mandates accurate labeling and child-resistant packaging. Products designed or marketed to appeal to children should be prohibited, and retailers that knowingly sell to minors should face meaningful penalties."

    Asked who should be permitted to sell THC, to whom, at what dose, in what form and subject to what safeguards, the answer opened: "I believe THC products should be legal only within a tightly regulated system that protects children and gives adult consumers clear information about what they are purchasing." and continued: "Sales should be limited to licensed and inspected retailers, and purchasers should be at least 21 years old with mandatory identification verification.

    I would not support THC products being sold in ways that make them easily accessible to minors." The same answer closed: "My goal would be straightforward: protect children, provide reasonable access for responsible adults, protect legitimate businesses that follow the rules, and make sure Texans know exactly what is in the products being sold." On the questionnaire’s fixed-choice questions: on maintaining a legal, regulated hemp marketplace, "Strongly Support"; on whether regulation is preferable to prohibition where a product can be made and sold safely, "Yes"; on letting adult Texans make their own choices about lawful wellness products, "Yes"; on distinguishing licensed Texas businesses from illicit operators, "Yes"; on retail regulation, "Reasonable statewide licensing/registration"; on whether the state should devote more time and resources to further restrictive legislation in the 2027 session, "No"; on how high a priority further regulation of low-THC hemp products should be, "Not a priority absent demonstrated problems requiring legislative action"; on hemp agriculture, "Strongly Support"; on incentives to keep hemp processing and manufacturing in Texas, "Yes"; on whether state agencies may prohibit products or conduct the Legislature has not expressly prohibited, "Legislature should establish the policy"; on keeping regulatory fees proportionate to the cost of administering the program, "Yes"; on tax policy, "Yes"; on consumer choice, "Yes"; on science- and evidence-based regulation, "Strongly Support"; on reviewing Texas law if federal hemp rules change, "Yes"; on meeting Texas hemp industry representatives during the legislative session, "Yes"; and on considering sponsoring or co-sponsoring legislation after reviewing the industry and constituents, "Yes".

    The council also asked for the candidate’s top three priorities for Texas; that answer is not about cannabis and is not reproduced here. The date is the date the council recorded the submission, in Central time.

    texashempbusinesscouncil.com, texashempbusinesscouncil.com, texashempbusinesscouncil.com

See the whole Texas Senate, District 24 race, including every opponent →

Who is paying for this campaign

Campaign finance — Texas Ethics Commission

Texas Ethics Commission filer 81966, filed as “Herrera, Joe P.”, treasurer appointment for State Senator, District 24, dated 2025-02-10. The name on the filing is not word-for-word the name on the ballot — both are printed above so you can check the pairing yourself before you rely on it.

Why there are no figures and no industry breakdown here. Texas does not require a candidate to report a contributor’s employer or occupation — the Commission’s own 2026 guide asks for the amount, the contributor’s name and address, and the date, and that is all. So there is nothing in these filings to group into industries, and we have built no such grouping rather than imply one. Separately, the Commission’s bulk filing archive tells automated readers to stay out of it, and we honour that, so we have read no individual Texas contribution record. Treat the itemised question as unchecked by us, not as checked and found empty.

Read this filer’s own reports at the Texas Ethics Commission (ethics.state.tx.us) → — choose Transaction Type “Contributions”, then Search By “Filer ID” and enter 81966. The Commission’s search posts its results, so there is no direct link to one filer’s page; the number above is what makes it one step instead of a hunt.

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 Joe Paz Herrera 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.