WeedVoter

Leilani Barnett Democrat

Texas House, District 69

About this race: The sitting member's recorded votes on the 2025 hemp-THC ban and the Compassionate Use Program expansion are listed below in date order, with their record-vote numbers, as the official journals print them.

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 Leilani Barnett’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 69 race page.

Leilani BarnettDemocrat
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.

  • 2026-10-16 questionnaire — Chose "Strongly Support" on maintaining a legal, regulated hemp marketplace and "Yes" on regulation being preferable to prohibition, and wrote that THC "should only be sold to adults" and "regulated appropriately", which is a market open to adults rather than a medical-only one. She also answered "Yes" on devoting more time and resources to further restrictive legislation in 2027, rated further regulation of low-THC hemp a "Significant priority", and wrote that she is "still studying" who should be permitted to sell THC; respondents in this questionnaire with the same combination (a legal marketplace, regulation over prohibition, and more regulation wanted) are recorded the same way, counted as +2 at weight 2

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

  • Questionnaire2026-10-16

    Answered "Strongly Support" on maintaining a legal, regulated hemp marketplace in Texas, in the Texas Hemp Business Council’s 2026 candidate questionnaire. The council is a hemp industry trade association; it put twenty questions to 225 candidates for the Texas Legislature, statewide office and the United States Senate, and publishes the answers it receives in full, without editing. These are the candidate’s own words, submitted by the candidate.

    Asked for her vision for the future of the Texas hemp industry and the regulatory framework she would support, she wrote that her understanding, from a friend, "is that hemp could be a miracle product for Texas farmers", and continued: "I see no reason why other states should benefit from the product when Texans do not, but I also want strong regulations in place to ensure that it is used safely and effectively in Texas."

    On keeping a legal, regulated hemp marketplace, the comments read: "Hemp can have a positive effect on our farmlands and serve as a useful product in Texas." Asked who should be permitted to sell THC, to whom, at what dose, in what form and subject to what safeguards, the answer was, in full: "I am still studying this question. Of course, it should only be sold to adults, should be regulated appropriately, and there should be instant-testing available if it impairs drivers' ability to be on the road safely."

    On whether state agencies may prohibit products or conduct the Legislature has not expressly prohibited, she chose "Depends on the statutory authority delegated by the Legislature" and explained: "I believe Texans deserve a voice as often as possible." On the questionnaire’s other fixed-choice questions: 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 the federal "Right to Try" law, "Yes"; on distinguishing licensed Texas businesses from illicit operators, "Yes"; on retail regulation, "Local licensing in addition to state requirements"; on whether the state should devote more time and resources to further restrictive legislation in the 2027 session, "Yes"; on how high a priority further regulation of low-THC hemp products should be, "Significant priority"; on hemp agriculture, "Strongly Support"; on incentives to keep hemp processing and manufacturing in Texas, "Yes"; 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 her top three priorities for Texas and for an explanation of her answer on the federal "Right to Try" law; neither answer mentions cannabis, hemp or THC. The council lists her office as "Texas House" and her district as "HD 69". 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 House, District 69 race, including every opponent →

Who is paying for this campaign

Campaign finance — Texas Ethics Commission

Texas Ethics Commission filer 90333, filed as “Barnett, Leilani L.”, treasurer appointment for State Representative, District 69, dated 2025-11-17. 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 90333. 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 Leilani Barnett 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.