WeedVoter

Julie Dahlberg Republican

Texas Senate, District 21

About this race: Reaches from south Austin down to the border. The incumbent voted for the medical expansion and against the hemp restrictions at every stage, including both 2025 called sessions.

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 Julie Dahlberg’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 21 race page.

Julie DahlbergRepublican
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.

  • 2026-09-21 questionnaire — Chose "Support" on maintaining a legal hemp marketplace and answered that regulation is preferable to prohibition, naming alcohol-style safeguards. This is a Republican Senate candidate on record for regulation over prohibition, which is uncommon in this file, so the answer is quoted at length rather than summarised, counted as +2 at weight 2

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

  • Questionnaire2026-09-21

    Said a regulated hemp industry has their support rather than restrictions that drive the market underground, in the Texas Hemp Business Council’s 2026 candidate questionnaire. The council is a hemp industry trade association; 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.

    Asked about the future of hemp in Texas, the answer was, in full: "I support a responsible, well-regulated Texas hemp industry that protects consumers without unnecessarily restricting personal liberty or legitimate commerce. Texas should distinguish between non-intoxicating hemp products and intoxicating cannabinoid products, with clear, consistent standards for testing, labeling, packaging, age restrictions, and product safety.

    I support strong penalties for selling intoxicating products to minors and for impaired driving, while preserving access for adults and patients who benefit from cannabinoid products. Regulation should focus on actual public-health and safety risks rather than arbitrary restrictions that drive legitimate businesses and consumers into the black market. I would also support reasonable, science-based THC limits and transparent labeling so consumers know exactly what they are purchasing and consuming.

    My goal is a regulatory framework that encourages Texas agriculture and business, protects children and public safety, respects medical freedom, and keeps government focused on measurable harms rather than criminalizing responsible adult choices." Asked who should be permitted to sell THC, to whom and with what safeguards: "Any legitimate company, licensed to sell, to adults only. Safeguards similar to the alcohol industry: 21+ age requirement, mandatory independent laboratory testing, child-resistant packaging, no marketing aimed at children, potency limits, licensing of manufacturers and retailers, strong penalties for selling to minors, continued prohibition on impaired driving" On the questionnaire’s fixed-choice questions: on maintaining a legal, regulated hemp marketplace, "Support"; on whether regulation is preferable to prohibition where a product can be made and sold safely, "Yes"; on retail regulation, "Reasonable statewide licensing/registration".

    The date is the date the council recorded the submission, in Central time.

    texashempbusinesscouncil.com, texashempbusinesscouncil.com, texashempbusinesscouncil.com, texashempbusinesscouncil.com

See the whole Texas Senate, District 21 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. Julie Dahlberg 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 Julie Dahlberg 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.