WeedVoter

Sylvia Soto Republican

Texas House, District 124

About this race: West San Antonio. The incumbent has filed two bills on marihuana possession penalties as primary author and was recorded absent for the SB 3 engrossment vote, filing a statement of vote the same day. Both the absence and the statement are listed.

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 Sylvia Soto’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 124 race page.

Sylvia SotoRepublican
75/100 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.

  • 2026-10-02 questionnaire — Answered "Support" on maintaining a legal, regulated hemp marketplace and "Yes" on regulation being preferable to prohibition, and wrote that "THC should to be sold to adults"; but hedged "Depends on the program" on processing incentives and "Depends on the federal change" on federal-state coordination, and wrote that the Texas hemp industry "has to be regulated and products provided must follow medical guidelines", counted as +1 at weight 2

Average on the −2 to +2 scale: 1. Full method and the bill table.

  • Questionnaire2026-10-02

    Answered 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: "My position on the future of Hemp is that the Texas hemp industry has to be regulated and products provided must follow medical guidelines.

    There have been stores already in Texas that have sold hemp in many forms. This can also be analyzed to see the benefits of the product and any issues that it may have caused to prove the benefits or issues the state of Texas may have." Asked who should be permitted to sell THC, to whom, at what dose, in what form and subject to what safeguards: "THC should to be sold to adults. The product dosage, form and what safeguard should be placed depends on the individual product."

    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 letting adult Texans make their own choices about lawful wellness products, "Yes"; on retail regulation, "Reasonable statewide licensing/registration"; on whether the state should devote more time and resources to further restrictive legislation in the 2027 session, "No"; on how high a priority further regulation of low-THC hemp products should be, "Not a priority absent demonstrated problems requiring legislative action"; on hemp agriculture, "Support"; on incentives to keep hemp processing and manufacturing in Texas, "Depends on the program"; on whether state agencies may prohibit products or conduct the Legislature has not expressly prohibited, "Legislature should establish the policy"; 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, "Support"; on reviewing Texas law if federal hemp rules change, "Depends on the federal change"; 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 the candidate’s top three priorities for Texas; that answer is not about cannabis and is not reproduced here. 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 124 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. Sylvia Soto 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 Sylvia Soto 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.