A plain-language key to the words on this site
Checked 6 October 2026 against the Texas House and Senate Journals, the Legislature's own bill-history pages, and the court orders and enrolled Acts this site already publishes. Every example below is taken from a page on this site, so you can see each term in the place you met it.
A candidate page here can say: "Recorded Nay on Record Vote 3192, passage of CSSB 3 as amended to third reading." Five of those words are terms of art, and one of them — the "CS" — changes what the sentence means. This page defines each of them in ordinary language.
Nothing on this page tells anyone how to mark a ballot. These are definitions of words used in the Texas Legislature and in Texas courts, written so that a record can be read without a procedural manual. If a definition here is wrong, the correction is published.
There are 24 entries, in 5 groups.
How a vote is recorded
Record vote (also written roll call)
A vote in which the Journal prints every member's name and how each one voted. The Texas House and Senate number them in order through a session, so "Record Vote 3192" is a permanent address for one decision on one afternoon, and anyone can look it up and check it.
Most votes are not recorded this way. A record vote happens on the final passage of a bill, and otherwise when a member asks for one. The rest — committee business, procedural motions, and a great deal of ordinary Senate business — is taken by voice, and the Journal then prints no list of names at all. That is why a candidate's page here can be thin: where no roll was called, there is nothing to publish, and we say so rather than guessing.
On this site: Record Vote 3192 was the Texas House passing CSSB 3, the intoxicating-hemp-THC ban, to third reading on 21 May 2025 by 95 Yeas to 44 Nays. Every member named on this site as a Yea or a Nay on that question is named because the House Journal prints them in that list.
Yea
The affirmative answer to whatever question is in front of the chamber. Written "Aye" in some journals and "Yea" in most Texas ones.
A Yea is an answer to a question, not to a subject. The question may be final passage of a bill, or an amendment to it, or a motion to reconsider something that happened an hour earlier. This site always prints the question beside the Yea for that reason.
On this site: On HB 46, the 2025 Compassionate-Use Program expansion, the House recorded 118 Yeas on passage to engrossment (Record Vote 2184), 122 Yeas on final passage (Record Vote 2257) and 138 Yeas on the conference committee report (Record Vote 4163). Three Yeas, three different questions, one bill.
Nay
The negative answer to the question before the chamber — the opposite of a Yea, and recorded in its own list of names.
A Nay is not the same as being absent, and it is not the same as answering "present, not voting". All three appear in the Journals and this site keeps them apart.
On this site: Record Vote 4163, the conference committee report on HB 46, carried 138 Yeas to 1 Nay: a single member in the negative, named in the Journal, on a bill that passed overwhelmingly.
Present, not voting
A member who is in the chamber, is counted towards the quorum, and declines to answer the question either way. The Journal prints them in a third list, and the tally line reports them separately from the Yeas and the Nays.
It is a deliberate, recorded act — different from being absent, and different from a vote. This site reports it as what it is and does not score it as either side.
On this site: Record Vote 663, third-reading passage of HB 3948 on hemp production and regulation, carried 132 Yeas to 13 Nays, with 2 present and not voting. Record Vote 609, final House passage of HB 1325 in 2019, carried 144 Yeas to 0 Nays, with 1 present and not voting.
Viva voce (also written voice vote)
Latin for "by the living voice": the presiding officer puts the question, members answer aloud, and the chair announces which side prevailed. No list of names is produced, so a voice vote names nobody — sometimes not even a number.
The Senate in particular disposes of a great deal of business this way. When a voice vote is taken, the Journal often records that all members are deemed to have voted Yea except those who ask to be recorded in the negative, so the only names printed are the Nays.
On this site: The Senate Journal for 26 May 2021 prints: "CSHB 3948 as amended was passed to third reading by a viva voce vote. All Members are deemed to have voted 'Yea' on the passage to third reading except as follows: Nays: Johnson." One surname, and no list of the Yeas — so on this site that vote is published for the member it names, and for no one else.
Statement of vote
A short written statement a member files after a record vote, which the Journal prints verbatim. They are filed when a member's vote failed to register, when the member was shown on the wrong side of a question, or when the member was absent and wants the record to show what their answer would have been.
A statement of vote is a correction to the record, not a second vote: the tally stands as the machine recorded it. This site publishes the statement beside the record vote it concerns, so a reader sees both the vote as counted and the member's printed account of it.
On this site: Diego Bernal filed a statement printed in the House Journal on 18 May 2015 about Record Vote 1182, passage of SB 339 to third reading: "When Record No. 1182 was taken, I was excused because of important business. I would have voted yes."
What the bill numbers mean
CSHB and CSSB (short for committee substitute)
"CS" stands for committee substitute. When a committee rewrites a bill rather than amending it line by line, it reports out a complete replacement text that keeps the original bill's number. HB 46 becomes CSHB 46; SB 3 becomes CSSB 3. Same number, different words.
This is the most consequential entry on this page. A vote on CSSB 3 is a vote on the committee's text, not the bill as filed. Readers who look up the filed version of a bill and then read a member's vote on the CS version are comparing two different documents — and on the 2025 hemp bill the two differed on the central question.
Once the chamber adopts the substitute and passes the bill, the "CS" is dropped again and the bill goes forward under its plain number. That is why the same bill appears on this site as CSHB 46 at one stage and HB 46 at the next: it is one bill throughout.
On this site: SB 3 of 2025 reached the House floor as CSSB 3. The House then adopted Amendment No. 2 — described in the Journal as a complete substitute below the enacting clause — by Record Vote 3191, 86 Yeas to 53 Nays, and passed CSSB 3 as amended to third reading by Record Vote 3192, 95 to 44. Final House passage, the next day, is recorded against the bare number: Record Vote 3304, SB 3, 87 to 54.
Passage to engrossment (also written second reading)
The first floor vote on a bill in the chamber where it started. "Engrossment" is the clerical act of preparing the official copy of the bill as the chamber has just amended it; the vote that orders it is the real debate, because amendments are offered and disposed of at this stage.
A bill that fails here is finished for that session. A bill that passes is engrossed and comes back for a second, separate vote.
On this site: Record Vote 2184 was passage to engrossment of CSHB 46, the Compassionate-Use Program expansion, 118 Yeas to 16 Nays. Record Vote 143 was passage to engrossment of CSHB 1805 in 2023, 121 to 23 — a bill that cleared this stage, passed the House, and then died in the Senate.
Third reading
The second and final floor vote on a bill in the same chamber, normally taken the following day. A bill is ordinarily voted on twice in each chamber, and the two votes are separate questions on separate days — so a member can answer differently at each stage, and plenty do. Amendments on third reading need a larger majority, so the text usually stops moving here.
Because of this, "how did my representative vote on the hemp ban" has more than one true answer. This site publishes each stage with its own date, record-vote number and tally rather than collapsing them into one.
A third-reading vote can also be reconsidered: if the chamber agrees to a motion to reconsider, it votes on the same bill again, and the second result is the one that stands.
On this site: On HB 46 the House recorded 118 Yeas to 16 Nays on engrossment and then 122 Yeas to 21 Nays on final passage — the chamber's answer, and its membership on the floor, changed between the two questions. HB 4918 in 2021 is sharper still: Record Vote 1421, third reading, FAILED 69 to 75; the House agreed to reconsider it (Record Vote 1476) and the same bill then PASSED 84 to 59 on Record Vote 1477, later the same evening.
Motion to concur (often just concur)
When the second chamber changes a bill, the originating chamber has a choice: accept the changes as they stand, or ask for a conference committee to negotiate. A motion to concur is the first of those. It takes the other chamber's version whole, with no further negotiation and no chance to amend, and if it carries the bill is finished and goes to the Governor.
So a vote on a motion to concur is a vote on the other chamber's text, including whatever that chamber narrowed or widened. It is often the last vote the originating chamber ever takes on the bill.
On this site: Record Vote 1688 was the House motion to concur in the Senate's changes to HB 1535, the 2021 Compassionate-Use Program expansion, which the Senate had narrowed — 119 Yeas to 25 Nays, and the bill went to the Governor. Record Vote 1824 did the same for HB 3703, 136 to 5, and Record Vote 1713 for HB 1325, the hemp bill, 140 to 3 with 2 present and not voting.
Conference committee report
If the chambers do not concur, five members from each are appointed to settle the differences. What they produce is the conference committee report: a single text that both chambers then vote on.
The report is take-it-or-leave-it. It cannot be amended on the floor. A member's only answers are Yea and Nay to the whole thing, including any part they dislike. It is usually the last and most consequential vote on a bill, and it is the one most likely to be mischaracterised afterwards, because a Yea here covers everything in the negotiated text at once.
On this site: Record Vote 4163, adoption of the conference committee report on HB 46, carried 138 Yeas to 1 Nay — the vote that settled the 2025 Compassionate-Use Program expansion. Record Vote 1759 did the same for HB 2593, the tetrahydrocannabinol penalty bill, 95 Yeas to 44 Nays, and sent it to the Governor.
Who put the bill forward
Author
The member who files the bill and carries it. The Legislature's own bill-history pages list one primary author, and that is the name this site publishes as the author.
Filing a bill is not the same as the bill going anywhere. Most bills filed in Texas never get a committee hearing, so an authorship is evidence of what a member chose to put their name on, not of anything the Legislature did.
On this site: A candidate page here records "Authored HB 99, filed in the 87th Legislature, a bill relating to the possession of two ounces or less of marihuana" — sourced to the Legislature's author table, which records the filing.
Joint author
A member added to the bill with nearly the standing of the author: in the Texas House up to four joint authors may be shown, and their names print on the bill itself. Being a joint author is a stronger association than being a coauthor, and the Legislature's bill-history page lists the two separately.
On this site: Ryan Guillen's page records him as a joint author of HB 1109 of the 87th Legislature, on the use of medical cannabis by veterans for post-traumatic stress disorder.
Coauthor
A member who signs on to a bill after it is filed, to show support. There is no limit on the number, and a coauthor takes no part in managing the bill. The Legislature records the date each coauthor signed on, which is why this site can date the act precisely.
A coauthorship is the weakest of these associations and the most common: it says a member put their name to a text, and nothing about any vote.
On this site: Diego Bernal's page records that he signed on as a coauthor of HB 892 of the 84th Legislature, on the medical use of low-THC cannabis and the regulation of the organisations supplying it, on 23 April 2015.
Sponsor
The member who takes a bill through the other chamber. A House bill that reaches the Senate needs a senator to carry it there, and that senator is its sponsor; the reverse is true of a Senate bill in the House.
A sponsorship is a managing role, not a signature: the sponsor moves the bill, answers questions on it, and handles amendments.
On this site: Charles Schwertner's page records that he sponsored HB 1535 in the Texas Senate — the 2021 Compassionate-Use Program expansion — and moved its third reading and final passage, which carried 31 Yeas to 0 Nays.
What the substances are
Cannabinoid
Any one of the roughly one hundred chemical compounds the cannabis plant makes. Some are intoxicating; most are not. The plant that produces all of them is a single species, Cannabis sativa L. — what is sold as marijuana and what is sold as hemp come from the same species, and the legal line between them is drawn by chemistry rather than by botany.
On this site: The 2025 federal hemp amendment turns on the phrase "cannabinoids that are not capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant" — seventeen words that decide which products remain lawful. The federal hemp deadline explainer on this site quotes the enrolled text in full.
THC (short for tetrahydrocannabinol)
Tetrahydrocannabinol: the family of cannabinoids that produces the intoxicating effect people associate with marijuana.
- Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol is the most abundant and most familiar member of that family, and the one legal thresholds have historically been written about.
- Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol is a close chemical relative, and the one most of the Texas retail argument has been about.
- Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, usually written THCA, is the inactive form the living plant actually produces. It converts into delta-9 when the plant material is heated, as in smoking or baking, which is why some rules measure "total THC" rather than delta-9 alone.
On this site: HB 4879 of 2025 funds local law enforcement to test substances suspected of containing delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol; HB 2593 moved possession of tetrahydrocannabinols into a new penalty group. Both appear on candidate pages here, and they are about different questions.
CBD (short for cannabidiol)
Cannabidiol: a cannabinoid that is not intoxicating. It matters to Texas law because the original Compassionate-Use Act required a minimum of it as well as a maximum of THC, so a product with too little CBD did not qualify however little THC it contained.
On this site: Under SB 339 of 2015, "low-THC cannabis" meant not more than 0.5 percent by weight of THC and not less than 10 percent by weight of cannabidiol. HB 3703 of 2019 struck that cannabidiol floor and left the THC ceiling where it was — the table of every change is in the Compassionate-Use Program explainer.
Hemp
Not a kind of plant: a legal category. Hemp is cannabis that falls under a chemical threshold written into federal law. Cannabis above the threshold is marijuana, a federally controlled substance; cannabis below it is hemp, an agricultural commodity. The threshold has been 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis.
Change the threshold and products move across the line without anything changing about the plants. That is exactly what the 2025 federal amendment does, and it is why "is this legal" and "what is in it" are two different questions.
On this site: Texas brought hemp production inside state law with HB 1325 in 2019 — final House passage, Record Vote 609, 144 Yeas to 0 Nays. The new federal definition takes effect on 12 November 2026, nine days after this election; the federal hemp deadline explainer quotes each date from the public law itself.
Low-THC cannabis
The statutory term for what a Texas patient may lawfully be prescribed. It is a definition with numbers in it, and the numbers have moved: the Legislature has rewritten them in three of the four Acts that widened the programme.
It is not a synonym for medical marijuana, and it is not CBD. It is one defined product, available by prescription under one programme.
On this site: The ceiling began at not more than 0.5 percent by weight of THC in 2015, became "not more than one percent by weight" in HB 1535 of 2021, and in HB 46 of 2025 became "not more than 10 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinols in each dosage unit" — a different kind of limit, not merely a looser one.
Compassionate-Use Program (also written TCUP)
The one lawful route to cannabis in Texas: a prescription for low-THC cannabis, written by a registered specialist physician, for one of thirteen listed conditions. The Department of Public Safety runs the registry and licenses the companies that dispense.
There is no patient card and no paper prescription — a prescription under this chapter is an entry in the Compassionate Use Registry of Texas.
This is a separate fight from the hemp-THC ban that dominates Texas cannabis news, and the same members frequently did both. This site records them as two things, because they are two things.
On this site: HB 46 of 2025 widened the programme and is scored here as an expansion; SB 3 of the same session banned intoxicating hemp THC. Dozens of members appear on this site with a Yea on both. The Compassionate-Use Program explainer sets out who may prescribe and exactly what HB 46 changed.
What a court has and has not done
Temporary injunction
An order that stops something while the case is tried. It is issued early, before any trial, and it decides nothing about whether the challenged law is valid — only what may happen in the meantime.
A temporary injunction against a city ordinance means the ordinance is blocked, not struck down. Reporting that a court "overturned" the measure, when what exists is a temporary injunction, states something the record does not support. This site has published a correction for doing exactly that.
On this site: The appellate decisions on the Austin and San Marcos marijuana ordinances direct the trial court to enter "a temporary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the Ordinance pending a final trial on the merits" — an order that stops enforcement while the case is tried, not a ruling that the ordinance is void.
Permanent injunction
An order, entered after the court decides the merits, that stops something permanently. It looks superficially like a temporary injunction and is a far stronger thing: it rests on a decision about who is right, not on a judgment about what should hold while that is worked out.
Not one of the Texas cannabis-ordinance cases this site tracks has produced a permanent injunction. Where our pages say an ordinance is blocked, the order behind that is temporary, and the pages say so.
On this site: On the local-ordinance rows this site publishes, the strongest order we can read is a temporary injunction, and several pages state plainly that "no trial has been held and no final judgment exists". A permanent injunction would come after that trial, and none has.
Final judgment
The court's decision that ends the case in that court: it resolves every issue between the parties and is the thing an appeal is taken from. Until a final judgment exists, nothing about the merits has been settled, whatever orders have been issued along the way.
These three are not the same thing, and this site publishes all three states — an order blocking enforcement for now, a case with no judgment yet, and an ordinance that is gone for a reason that is not a court's at all. A row that says "in litigation" means the case is live and nobody has won.
On this site: Denton's ordinance is gone because the city council repealed it on 20 May 2025, and this site's law table says so: no court ever ruled on it, there is no appellate decision, and we found no final judgment or dismissal in the Attorney General's suit after the repeal. Elsewhere a federal decision is described as one "about a temporary injunction and those claims, not a final judgment on every issue in the case".
Elsewhere on this site
- The federal hemp deadline — The new federal definition of hemp takes effect on 12 November 2026 — nine days after the election — and the rest of it on 11 December. Widely reported as a one-year delay; the enrolled text says something narrower. What each date does, quoted from the public laws themselves.
- The Texas Compassionate-Use Program — Texas has one lawful route to cannabis: a prescription under the Compassionate-Use Program, for one of thirteen listed conditions. Who may prescribe, what House Bill 46 changed in 2025, and why a Yea on it scores +1 here rather than +2.
- Cannabis law, jurisdiction by jurisdiction — All fifty states and the District of Columbia, in four categories, each with the note and the sources behind it — and, separately, whether possession of a small amount is a criminal charge under that state's law. Texas is on the front page in full.
- Deadlines, photo ID and voting by mail — every date quoted from the Texas Secretary of State.
- How the score works — the whole method, including the judgments, and the bill table every score rests on.
This page describes the law and the record. Nothing here tells anyone how to vote. Every claim above carries the document it came from; if one is wrong, the correction is published.