Texas House, District 14
The sitting member's recorded votes on the 2025 hemp-THC ban and the Compassionate Use Program expansion are listed below in date order, with their record-vote numbers, as the official journals print them.
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.
- 2025-06-01 Texas Compassionate-Use Program HB 46 — voted, counted as +1 at weight 3
- 2025-05-22 Consumable hemp and hemp-derived cannabinoids SB 3 — voted, counted as -2 at weight 3
- 2025-05-21 Consumable hemp and hemp-derived cannabinoids SB 3 — voted, counted as -2 at weight 3
- 2025-05-15 Grant programme for testing suspected THC HB 4879 — voted, counted as -1 at weight 3
- 2025-05-14 Grant programme for testing suspected THC HB 4879 — voted, counted as -1 at weight 3
- 2025-05-13 Texas Compassionate-Use Program HB 46 — voted, counted as +1 at weight 3
- 2025-05-12 Texas Compassionate-Use Program HB 46 — voted, counted as +1 at weight 3
Average on the −2 to +2 scale: -0.429. Full method and the bill table.
-
Vote2025-05-12
Recorded Yea on Record Vote 2184, passage to engrossment of CSHB 46, the Compassionate Use Program expansion, which carried 118 Yeas to 16 Nays.
-
Vote2025-05-13
Recorded Yea on Record Vote 2257, final House passage of HB 46, the Compassionate Use Program expansion, which carried 122 Yeas to 21 Nays.
-
Vote2025-05-14
Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 2514, passage to engrossment of CSHB 4879, funding local law enforcement to test substances suspected of containing delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, which carried 121 Yeas to 15 Nays.
-
Vote2025-05-14
Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 2495, passage of SB 1833, as amended, to third reading, on the use of a social media platform in furtherance of a controlled-substance delivery offence. The measure carried, 135 Yeas to 2 Nays. The bill is captioned "Relating to the use of a social media platform in furtherance of an offense involving the delivery of a controlled substance; increasing criminal penalties." The journal prints this member in the Yea list as "Dyson"; the printed form is matched to this member against the whole membership of the 89th House, who sat for House District 14.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: Senate Bill 1833 is on this site’s unscored list: it raises the penalty for delivering any controlled substance when a social media platform is used to arrange the delivery, and the floor remarks describe it wholly as a response to counterfeit fentanyl pills sold to schoolchildren. The only cannabis-specific change the House made to it, Amendment No. 1, adopted immediately before Record Vote 2495, exempts delivery of four ounces of marihuana or less from the enhancement.
Its direction on cannabis access is therefore arguable, and the vote is recorded without moving the score.
-
Vote2025-05-15
Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 2629, final House passage of HB 4879, funding local law enforcement to test substances suspected of containing delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, which carried 128 Yeas to 11 Nays.
-
Vote2025-05-15
Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 2594, third-reading passage of SB 1833, on the use of a social media platform in furtherance of a controlled-substance delivery offence. The measure carried, 136 Yeas to 3 Nays. The bill is captioned "Relating to the use of a social media platform in furtherance of an offense involving the delivery of a controlled substance; increasing criminal penalties." The journal prints this member in the Yea list as "Dyson"; the printed form is matched to this member against the whole membership of the 89th House, who sat for House District 14.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: Senate Bill 1833 is on this site’s unscored list: it raises the penalty for delivering any controlled substance when a social media platform is used to arrange the delivery, and the floor remarks describe it wholly as a response to counterfeit fentanyl pills sold to schoolchildren. The only cannabis-specific change the House made to it, Amendment No. 1, adopted immediately before Record Vote 2495, exempts delivery of four ounces of marihuana or less from the enhancement.
Its direction on cannabis access is therefore arguable, and the vote is recorded without moving the score.
-
Vote2025-05-21
Recorded Yea on Record Vote 3192, passage to third reading of CSSB 3, the intoxicating-hemp-THC ban, which carried 95 Yeas to 44 Nays.
-
Vote2025-05-21
Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 3188, adoption of Amendment No. 1 to CSSB 3, the consumable-hemp bill, offered by its House sponsor, deferring the licensing requirements the bill adds until January 1, 2027, which carried 136 Yeas to 0 Nays.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: A floor amendment does not take the direction of the bill it amends. Amendment No. 1 to SB 3 rewrote the possession offence downward while the bill itself restricted consumable hemp, so a Yea on the amendment and a Yea on the bill point opposite ways. This record is shown because the member is named in the journal, and it is kept out of the score because its direction is not ours to assert.
-
Vote2025-05-21
Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 3189, adoption of Amendment No. 3 to CSSB 3, amending Amendment No. 2, exempting low-THC cannabis regulated under Chapter 487 and hemp research at medical schools, hospitals and institutions of higher education, which carried 102 Yeas to 24 Nays.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: A floor amendment does not take the direction of the bill it amends. Amendment No. 1 to SB 3 rewrote the possession offence downward while the bill itself restricted consumable hemp, so a Yea on the amendment and a Yea on the bill point opposite ways. This record is shown because the member is named in the journal, and it is kept out of the score because its direction is not ours to assert.
-
Vote2025-05-21
Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 3190, adoption of Amendment No. 4 to CSSB 3, amending Amendment No. 2, rewriting the possession offence and its deferred-disposition and prior-conviction provisions, which carried 126 Yeas to 10 Nays.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: A floor amendment does not take the direction of the bill it amends. Amendment No. 1 to SB 3 rewrote the possession offence downward while the bill itself restricted consumable hemp, so a Yea on the amendment and a Yea on the bill point opposite ways. This record is shown because the member is named in the journal, and it is kept out of the score because its direction is not ours to assert.
-
Vote2025-05-21
Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 3191, adoption of Amendment No. 2, as amended, to CSSB 3 — a complete substitute for everything below the enacting clause, and from that point the text of the bill, which carried 86 Yeas to 53 Nays.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: A floor amendment does not take the direction of the bill it amends. Amendment No. 1 to SB 3 rewrote the possession offence downward while the bill itself restricted consumable hemp, so a Yea on the amendment and a Yea on the bill point opposite ways. This record is shown because the member is named in the journal, and it is kept out of the score because its direction is not ours to assert.
-
Vote2025-05-22
Recorded Yea on Record Vote 3304, final House passage of SB 3, the intoxicating-hemp-THC ban, which carried 87 Yeas to 54 Nays.
-
Vote2025-05-22
Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 3303, adoption of Amendment No. 1 to SB 3 on third reading, rewriting the possession offence in the bill and its eligibility for deferred disposition, which carried 108 Yeas to 30 Nays.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: A floor amendment does not take the direction of the bill it amends. Amendment No. 1 to SB 3 rewrote the possession offence downward while the bill itself restricted consumable hemp, so a Yea on the amendment and a Yea on the bill point opposite ways. This record is shown because the member is named in the journal, and it is kept out of the score because its direction is not ours to assert.
-
Vote2025-06-01
Recorded Yea on Record Vote 4163, adoption of the conference committee report on HB 46, the Compassionate Use Program expansion, which carried 138 Yeas to 1 Nay.
-
Vote2025-06-01
Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 4162, adoption of HR 1523, suspending House Rule 13, Section 9(a)(4) so that the HB 46 conference committee could add text providing that a physician may prescribe more than one package of low-THC cannabis in a 90-day period, which carried 128 Yeas to 12 Nays.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: A vote to suspend a House rule so that a conference committee may consider particular text is a vote about procedure, not a recorded position on the text. Shown, not scored.
-
Vote2025-06-01
Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 4164, adoption of SCR 56, the first of the two enrolling corrections to HB 46, which instructed the enrolling clerk of the house of representatives to make corrections in the enrolled text of HB 46, the Compassionate-Use Program expansion. The resolution was adopted 137 Yeas to 0 Nays with 1 present not voting, and the House Journal for the 80th Day names this member in the printed Yeas list.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but not counted in the score: This site deliberately does not score SCR 56 (89th Legislature), so a record on it moves no number.
Why SCR 56 is not scored
A concurrent resolution, not a bill, and the second of two enrolling-clerk corrections to HB 46 — the sibling of HCR 171, ruled the same way and for the same reason. SCR 56 instructed the enrolling clerk of the house of representatives to make a correction in the enrolled text of HB 46, the Compassionate-Use Program expansion. Adopted in the Senate 2025-06-01, Yeas 31 Nays 0, and in the House the same day by Record Vote 4164, 137 Yeas to 0 Nays with 1 present not voting, House Journal 80th Day page 7902 (journals.house.texas.gov/hjrnl/89r/html/89RDAY80FINAL.HTM).
What it said. The House journal prints only the recital, "Instructing the enrolling clerk of the house of representatives to make corrections in HB 46", so the operative text was read in the Senate Journal for 2025-06-01 (journals.senate.texas.gov/sjrnl/89r/html/89RSJ06-01-F.htm), which prints the resolution in full: "RESOLVED by the 89th Legislature of the State of Texas, That the enrolling clerk of the house of representatives be instructed to make the following corrections to the enrolled version of House Bill No. 46: In SECTION 15 of the bill, in amended Section 169.003(a)(3)(A), Occupations Code (page 10, between lines 8 and 9), immediately following added subparagraph (xi), insert the following appropriately numbered subparagraph and renumber subsequent subparagraphs of that paragraph accordingly: (__) Crohn’s disease or other inflammatory bowel disease;".
⚠️Read alone it looks like adding a qualifying condition to the medical programme, which would be an expansion of access — and that is the trap, running the opposite way to its sibling’s. HCR 171 struck a sentence and looked restrictive; SCR 56 inserts a condition and looks expansive; both are neither, because both conform the enrolled bill to the text the two chambers actually adopted. The test is whether the inserted language was already in what passed, and it was.
The conference committee report on HB 46, laid before the house and printed in the House Journal 80th Day at page 7900 (journals.house.texas.gov/hjrnl/89r/html/89RDAY80FINAL.HTM), sets out Section 15 amending Section 169.003 and lists the qualifying diagnoses in order: "(xi) traumatic brain injury; (xii) Crohn’s disease or other inflammatory bowel disease; (xiii) a terminal illness or a condition for which a patient is receiving hospice or palliative care".
The position matches the resolution exactly — SCR 56 asks for the insertion "immediately following added subparagraph (xi)", and the adopted report prints Crohn’s as (xii), immediately following (xi). That report was adopted by the House on 2025-06-01 by Record Vote 4163, 138 Yeas to 1 Nay, and by the Senate the same day, Yeas 31 Nays 0. The subparagraph had therefore already been voted into the bill by both chambers; the enrolled copy had dropped it, and SCR 56 put it back.
A Yes on an enrolling correction is not a position on which diseases qualify. The enrolled text itself cannot be checked from here: capitol.texas.gov disallows /TLODOCS/ to us. Downstream, measured: 121 verified acts cite this resolution, across 121 distinct candidates (49 Democrats, 72 Republicans), and every one of them already holds a published number. classify() returns "other" for all 121, so no published number moves whichever way this is ruled — the ruling is what lets the acts be printed with a written reason instead of sitting unjudged.
HB 46 itself is scored, at +1, and that is where a member’s position on the Compassionate-Use expansion is read.
-
Vote2025-06-02
Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 4167, adoption of HCR 171, the second enrolling correction to HB 46, which instructed the enrolling clerk of the house to strike from the enrolled bill a sentence allowing low-THC cannabis prescribed for pulmonary inhalation to exceed one percent tetrahydrocannabinols by weight in each dosage unit. The resolution was adopted 138 Yeas to 0 Nays with 1 present not voting, and the House Journal for the 81st Day names this member in the printed Yeas list.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but not counted in the score: This site deliberately does not score HCR 171 (89th Legislature), so a record on it moves no number.
Why HCR 171 is not scored
A concurrent resolution, not a bill: it instructed the enrolling clerk to strike from the enrolled HB 46, in Section 16, added Section 169.006(b), Occupations Code (page 11, lines 16-20), the sentence “Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, low-THC cannabis prescribed under Subsection (a) for pulmonary inhalation may exceed one percent by weight of tetrahydrocannabinols in each dosage unit of the substance to be aerosolized or vaporized.”
Adopted 2025-06-02 by Record Vote 4167, 138 Yeas to 0 Nays with 1 present not voting, House Journal 81st Day pages 7921-7922.
⚠️Read alone it looks like stripping a potency allowance out of the medical programme, and the journals say otherwise. The sentence entered the bill through King's floor Amendment No. 1 on second reading, House Journal 62nd Day, 2025-05-12 (journals.house.texas.gov/hjrnl/89r/html/89RDAY62FINAL.HTM), item (10); item (9) of the same amendment fixed the definition of low-THC cannabis at not more than one percent by weight in each dosage unit, which is the benchmark the sentence excepts itself from.
The conference committee report laid before the house on 2025-06-01 replaced that cap with not more than 10 milligrams in each dosage unit, and its own text of Section 169.006(b) consists only of the second sentence: the notwithstanding clause does not appear anywhere in the conference report as printed, House Journal 80th Day page 7900. So the struck sentence was not in the text either chamber finally adopted and it pointed at a cap the same report had deleted.
HCR 171 conformed the enrolled bill to the bill that passed, which is what its own recital says and what 138 to 0 looks like; HB 46 took a second enrolling correction the day before, SCR 56 at Record Vote 4164. A Yes on an enrolling correction is not a position on potency. The enrolled text itself cannot be checked from here: capitol.texas.gov disallows /TLODOCS/ to us.
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.
- 2026-09-11 questionnaire — Answered that she supports moving Texas toward a legal, regulated cannabis market including adult-use THC products, with a reasonable excise tax on adult-use sales and no tax on medical cannabis, and "Strongly Support" on maintaining a legal hemp marketplace, counted as +2 at weight 2
- 2026-02-16 statement — Platform plank calls for decriminalising, legalising, regulating and taxing adult-use THC, counted as +2 at weight 2
- 2026-02-13 questionnaire — Named decriminalisation, taxation and regulation of adult-use THC as a legislative priority in her own words, which is a position for changing the law rather than a description of it. Scored the same as other candidates in this guide who stated support for taxing and regulating adult-use THC. She has no voting record on this because she has not held this office, counted as +2 at weight 2
- 2022-01-27 statement — Earlier statewide campaign platform called for legalising or decriminalising adult-use recreational cannabis, counted as +2 at weight 1.2
Average on the −2 to +2 scale: 2. Full method and the bill table.
-
Said2022-01-27
In an earlier statewide campaign for Texas Comptroller, published an issues page whose first plank was headed "Legalize/Decriminalize adult-use recreational cannabis", reading: "Texas needs a new revenue stream to reduce property tax, fund education, health (& mental health) care, and public safety. A growing number of states are bringing in revenue by legalizing cannabis for adult recreational use. The industry is mature enough to have established best practices, which should be incorporated." and "Decriminalization saves the state $300 million in criminal justice costs and saves local property taxes.
Licensing fees from the different areas of the cannabis industry is sufficient to fund enforcement. Distributing licenses for the new businesses should formally consider which communities have been most harmed by the decades-long marijuana incarceration protocol and the resulting impact of felony marijuana convictions on housing, jobs and families." The page is undated: 2022-01-27 is the earliest Internet Archive capture containing the text, a capture date and not a publication date.
The same text is still present in a 2024-06-20 capture.
-
Questionnaire2026-02-13
Answered a candidate questionnaire published by Community Impact and named decriminalising, taxing and regulating adult-use THC twice, in answers to two questions that did not mention cannabis. Asked what projects are most important for the legislature to focus on, she gave a list of nine priorities, one of which was "THC-adult-use decriminalization, taxation & regulation" Asked what her priorities would be for the future of Texas education, she wrote that public taxes should go to public schools and added: "While we’re at it, let’s decriminalize and regulate adult-use THC to fund ISD employee’s social security AND TRS."
The paper put the same questions to both Democratic candidates in the March primary and printed the answers it received; the other candidate, David Kessler, did not mention THC, hemp or cannabis anywhere in it. She went on to win the primary and is the party’s nominee for this seat in the November general election.
-
Said2026-02-16
Campaign issues page carries a plank headed "Decriminalize, Regulate & Tax THC" reading: "If I can step across the line into New Mexico and legally buy a $25 bag of gummies, I should not be a criminal one mile later." and "Decriminalize, Legalize, Regulate and TAX adult-use THC. In the enabling legislation, direct the revenue to public schools, healthcare, housing and real property tax reform." A linked detail page expands the plank, ending: "Treat adults like adults.
Protect kids. Test the product. License the seller. Tell the truth on the label. And make the revenue work for Texas." The live page is undated: 2026-02-16 is the date of the earliest Internet Archive capture containing this text, a capture date and not a publication date.
janetdudding4texas.com, janetdudding4texas.com, web.archive.org
-
Questionnaire2026-09-11
Said she supports "moving Texas toward a legal, regulated cannabis market that includes hemp and adult-use THC products", 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 support moving Texas toward a legal, regulated cannabis market that includes hemp and adult-use THC products, with clear rules that protect consumers and treat adults like adults. Prohibition and half-measures have created confusion, unsafe products, and an uneven playing field for responsible businesses. Texas should require licensed production and retail sales, independent testing, accurate labeling, age restrictions, child-resistant packaging, and real enforcement against bad actors.
Higher-dose intoxicating products should be sold only through tightly regulated retailers, not gas stations or convenience stores. I support a reasonable excise tax on adult-use sales, with revenue sharing written into law for local governments, public education including fine arts, public health, and oversight. Medical cannabis should be treated like healthcare, not a luxury good, and should not be taxed." Asked who should be permitted to sell THC, to whom, at what dose, in what form and subject to what safeguards: "Only licensed and regulated businesses should be allowed to sell THC products.
Adult-use products should be sold only to adults 21 and older, and medical products only to lawfully authorized patients. Lower-dose products may be appropriate for licensed general retailers that meet strict standards, but higher-dose intoxicating products should be limited to tightly regulated specialty retailers. In all cases, Texas should require independent testing, clear potency and ingredient labeling, child-resistant packaging, batch tracking, recall authority, and strong enforcement.
Intoxicating products should not be sold in gas stations, truck stops, or convenience stores." On keeping a legal, regulated hemp marketplace, the comments read: "I strongly support a legal, regulated hemp marketplace in Texas. The better approach is not prohibition, but clear rules that protect consumers, support legitimate businesses, and give law enforcement workable standards. Products sold to Texans should be tested, accurately labeled, age-restricted where appropriate, and sold only through licensed, accountable retailers."
Asked why regulation is or is not preferable to prohibition: "Regulation is preferable because it promotes public safety, transparency, and accountability. If a product can be manufactured and sold safely, the state should require independent testing, ingredient disclosure, potency standards, packaging safeguards, and enforcement against bad actors rather than pushing demand into less safe channels. Texans are better protected by oversight than by blanket bans that create confusion and encourage unregulated sales."
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, "State license required for all cultivators, processors, distributors, testing labs, and retailers. Local business permit/license allowed for retailers and possibly on-site consumption businesses.
No local power to override state product-testing standards. Local control limited to zoning, hours, density, signage, fire/building compliance, nuisance rules, and local public-safety enforcement. Uniform statewide safety rules so businesses do not face conflicting product standards city to city."; on tax policy, "Depends on the proposed tax"; on consumer choice, "Depends on the product or dosage". The date is the date the council recorded the submission, in Central time.
texashempbusinesscouncil.com, texashempbusinesscouncil.com, texashempbusinesscouncil.com, texashempbusinesscouncil.com
No score: the record below carries 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. It is shown in full so you can read it and judge for yourself.
-
Said2026-09-18
Campaign platform, under the heading "Immigration Reform", states: "I also advocate for ending drug prohibition, which fuels cartel violence and dangerous border crossings, ensuring safer, orderly immigration."
⚠️This is not a cannabis position and is recorded here as drug-policy context only: the page names no cannabis, marijuana, hemp, THC or CBD anywhere, and "drug prohibition" is not defined on it. The page carries no date and the Internet Archive holds no capture of it containing this text, so 2026-09-18 is the date the page was read, not a publication date.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: Calls for ending drug prohibition without naming cannabis anywhere on the page, so no direction on cannabis access can be taken from it.
All 3 candidates on this ballot are listed.