WeedVoter

Nate Sheets Republican

Commissioner of Agriculture

About this race: This office licenses hemp cultivation in Texas, so the two major-party nominees have both taken positions on hemp. They point in opposite directions. The three-term incumbent is not on the ballot, having lost his primary in March.

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 Nate Sheets’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 Commissioner of Agriculture race page.

Nate SheetsRepublican

No score: the 2 records below carry no direction this site is willing to score — an abstention, a vote on a bill whose effect on legal access is genuinely arguable, or a statement that names no position. They are shown in full so you can read them and judge for yourself.

  • Said2025-10-15

    The Brownwood News reported on 2026-08-30 that his critique of the current Texas hemp industry is that it has focused on allowing usage for smokable products, and that there are more practical uses for hemp — paper and clothes — and that it is a good crop for rotation and for keeping Texas soil healthy.

    ⚠️Those are the reporter’s words, not his: that article quotes nothing he said.

    A recorded video interview with the Texan is also cited here, and this site is not permitted to read that publisher, which asks our tools by name not to.

    WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but not counted in the score: A record of this kind counts only when this site has published a reading of its direction, with the reason for it, and none has been made for this one.

    thetexan.news, brownwoodnews.com

  • Questionnaire2026-02-03

    Answered The Dallas Morning News's 2026 voter-guide questionnaire, which asked every Commissioner of Agriculture candidate in its guide, "Describe your views on the legalization of marijuana. How would this impact agriculture in Texas?" The first paragraph of the answer, in full: "I believe Texas must follow the rule of law, protect minors, and support veterans through regulated medical access—not backdoor legalization.

    Delta-8, Delta-9, and Delta-10 products flooded Texas because of a loophole, not because the Legislature or voters approved recreational marijuana. Congress has now closed that loophole nationally, and I believe Texas should respect that clarity and enforce the law as written. As a veteran, I support expanding the Texas Compassionate Use Program so those suffering from PTSD, chronic pain, and anxiety can access safe, regulated medicine—not untested synthetics sold at gas stations.

    My position is simple: protect kids, protect consumers, support veterans, and uphold the decisions made by Congress and the Texas Legislature." The answer continued with a second paragraph about the past statements of an opponent in the March primary who is not a candidate in the November election. That paragraph is not reproduced here, because the person it describes is not on this ballot and has no page on this site in which to answer it; it is in the cited source in full.

    WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: States both support for expanding the Texas Compassionate Use Program so patients with PTSD, chronic pain and anxiety can obtain regulated medicine, and that Texas should enforce the federal closure of the hemp-derived THC loophole as written rather than accept what the answer calls backdoor legalization. The answer points in both directions on lawful access, so no single direction is read from it.

    web.archive.org, dallasnews.com

This card has been corrected. What an earlier version of it said, and what was wrong with it, is published in the corrections log.

See the whole Commissioner of Agriculture 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. Nate Sheets 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 Nate Sheets 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.