Texas House, District 136
About this race: Cedar Park. This is the state House seat for ZIP 78613, the district used as the worked example throughout this site. Both candidates have a documented position: the incumbent filed a cannabis-related bill, signed on as a coauthor of six more, and has cast 39 recorded votes, and the challenger publishes a decriminalisation plank on his campaign site. The challenger's page carries no date of its own, so the date below is the earliest Internet Archive capture containing the text.
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
Theodore Schramm’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 136 race page.
Theodore SchrammRepublican
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.
- 2026-01-07 statement — Supports decriminalising small amounts of cannabis while only studying legalisation, so a partial rather than a full move, counted as +1 at weight 2
-
Said2026-01-07
Published a platform plank under the heading "6. Personal Freedoms" on his campaign site reading, in full: "Support decriminalizing small amounts of cannabis to reduce jail costs and redirect police focus, while studying legalization’s impacts." The page carries no date of its own; this is the date of the earliest Internet Archive capture containing the text, so the position was published by at least then. The wording is unchanged in every later capture and on the live site as of 2026-09-18.
web.archive.org, theodoretx.com
See the whole Texas House, District 136 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. Theodore Schramm 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 Theodore Schramm 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.