WeedVoter

Sara McGee Democrat

Texas House, District 132

About this race: West Harris County. The incumbent was absent and excused for both medical-expansion votes, with no statement of vote recorded, and voted for the hemp-THC ban at both stages.

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 Sara McGee’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 132 race page.

Sara McGeeDemocrat
100/100 support for legal access — top band, 67 to 100 thin — one or two records produced this number · 2 of 2 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.

  • 2026-10-01 questionnaire — Answered that she is in full support of a completely legalised hemp and THC industry in Texas, and "Strongly Support" on maintaining a legal, regulated hemp marketplace, counted as +2 at weight 2
  • 2026-09-20 statement — A dedicated campaign policy page headed "Legalize Cannabis" arguing for legalisation. That is support for adult legal access, counted as +2 at weight 2

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

  • Said2026-09-20

    Her campaign site carries a policy page headed "Legalize Cannabis", reached from the main navigation menu alongside her other issue pages. It reads: "Legislating morality is so 1950's. Let the people have their plants." and "Cannabis has been studied extensively, and the benefits are innumerable. Here are some of the benefits that legalization could bring to our state:", followed by six headings: tax revenue, job creation, regulation for safety, medical benefits, reduction in opioid use, and border security.

    ⚠️The page carries no publication date, so 2026-09-20 is the date it was read, not a publication date; the footer carries a 2025 copyright.

    mcgeefortx.com

  • Questionnaire2026-10-01

    Said she is "in full support of a completely legalized hemp/thc industry 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 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 am in full support of a completely legalized hemp/thc industry in Texas.

    Having said that, I am by no means an expert. I look forward to working with the industry experts on what specific policy language would need to be included in a bill to achieve that goal." Asked who should be permitted to sell THC, to whom, at what dose, in what form and subject to what safeguards: "I support a regulated, adult-only market for hemp-derived THC rather than prohibition. THC products should be sold only by properly registered and regulated businesses that are accountable for what they put on their shelves.

    Sales should be limited to adults 21 and older with government-issued ID verification, with appropriate exceptions permitted by law for parents administering products to their children and for veterans. I do not support an arbitrary one-size-fits-all milligram cap. Different consumers use these products for different purposes and have very different tolerances and needs. Instead, every product should clearly disclose the amount of THC per serving and per package so adults know exactly what they are purchasing and consuming.

    Legal products should be allowed in the forms currently available to adult consumers, including edibles, beverages, tinctures and other compliant hemp-derived products, provided they meet rigorous safety standards. Those safeguards should include independent laboratory testing for cannabinoid content and contaminants such as pesticides, heavy metals, residual solvents and harmful microorganisms; accurate labeling with batch information and accessible certificates of analysis; tamper-evident and appropriate child-resistant packaging; restrictions on packaging designed to appeal to children or imitate familiar candy and consumer brands; responsible age verification; and meaningful enforcement against businesses that sell to minors or misrepresent their products.

    I also support reasonable restrictions around schools and strong standards governing the sourcing and manufacture of cannabinoid ingredients. The goal should be straightforward: keep intoxicating THC products away from children, make sure adults know exactly what they are buying, hold manufacturers and retailers accountable for product safety, and regulate a legal market rather than driving consumers into an unregulated one."

    Asked why regulation is or is not preferable to prohibition: "You simply cannot be a state that advertises "medical freedom" and then turn around and attempt to ban one of the oldest and most thoroughly studied medicines in history. This is about the freedom for adults to choose what products they want to consume." 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 hemp agriculture, "Strongly Support"; on retail regulation, "Reasonable statewide licensing/registration"; on tax policy, "Yes"; on consumer choice, "Yes".

    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 132 race, including every opponent →

Who is paying for this campaign

Campaign finance — Texas Ethics Commission

Texas Ethics Commission filer 89115, filed as “McGee, Sara A.”, treasurer appointment for State Representative, District 132, dated 2024-11-13. 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 89115. 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 Sara McGee 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.