Texas House, District 133
About this race: West Houston. The incumbent voted for both the medical expansion and the hemp-THC ban 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
Josh Wallenstein’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 House, District 133 race page.
Josh WallensteinDemocrat
100/100
support for legal access — top band, 67 to 100
thin — one or two records produced this number · 1 of 1 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.
- 2020-03-03 questionnaire — Marked support for legalising adult possession under a legal market, for medical access and for fine-only possession penalties, and wrote that marijuana should be legalised, regulated and taxed at the federal level, counted as +2 at weight 0.6
-
Questionnaire2020-03-03
As a candidate in the 2020 Democratic primary for Texas House District 138, answered the candidate survey printed in the Texas Marijuana Policy Voter Guide for that primary, compiled by Texans for Responsible Marijuana Policy with Texas NORML. His row marks support for three state questions — letting patients with debilitating medical conditions access full-spectrum medical cannabis, making low-level possession punishable by a fine with no jail time, and allowing adults 21 and over to possess limited amounts of marijuana under a legal market — and marks the fourth, that states should be able to carry out their own marijuana policies without federal interference, with a cross rather than a tick.
His written comment begins: "I believe that we should legalize, regulate and tax marijuana at the federal level." It goes on to say that states should not be permitted to criminalise locally what would be federally permissible, and should be limited to taxation and other regulatory powers.
⚠️This is 2020 evidence, not 2026, and from a different District. It was given six years before this election, when he sought the District 138 nomination; the guide is dated only to the edition for the 3 March 2020 primary, so that election date is used.
⚠️The row is matched to this candidate by its contact address, which is at josh4texas.com, the domain of the campaign site this guide already cites for him in 2026.
⚠️The tick and cross marks are printed as symbols the text layer does not carry, so they were read from the rendered page; the row above his, for another candidate, carries four ticks and confirms which mark is which.
texasnorml.org
See the whole Texas House, District 133 race, including every opponent →
Who is paying for this campaign
Campaign finance — Texas Ethics Commission
We could not match a Commission filer number to this name. The
Commission’s list of candidates who have appointed a campaign treasurer carried no
single row matching both the surname and the given name on the ballot for this seat, so
none was guessed at. Josh Wallenstein may have filed under a different form of their name.
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.
Search campaign filings at the Texas
Ethics Commission (ethics.state.tx.us) → — choose Transaction Type
“Contributions” and search by name.
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 Josh Wallenstein 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.