Texas House, District 61
A district in the northern suburbs of Dallas-Fort Worth. 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: -0.143. 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 Nay 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 "Richardson"; the printed form is matched to this member against the whole membership of the 89th House, who sat for House District 61.
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 "Richardson"; the printed form is matched to this member against the whole membership of the 89th House, who sat for House District 61.
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.
- 2026-09-22 questionnaire — Answered "Strongly Support" on maintaining a legal, regulated hemp marketplace and wrote that Texas should regulate rather than treat responsible businesses and adult consumers as criminals, counted as +2 at weight 2
- 2026-02-03 questionnaire — Called for decriminalising possession, regulating and taxing cannabis similarly to alcohol, expunging past convictions and establishing clear medical access. That is support for lawful adult access, counted as +2 at weight 2
Average on the −2 to +2 scale: 2. Full method and the bill table.
-
Questionnaire2026-02-03
Answered the Dallas Morning News candidate questionnaire in its 2026 voter guide. The paper asked every candidate in the race: "How do you think the president’s executive order to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III drug will affect THC regulation in Texas?" The answer given was: "Federal reclassification creates an opportunity for Texas to establish a coherent, evidence-based approach. We should decriminalize possession to stop wasting law enforcement resources on nonviolent offenses, regulate and tax cannabis similarly to alcohol to generate revenue and ensure safety, expunge records for past marijuana convictions that have devastated communities, establish clear medical cannabis access for patients who need it, and set reasonable THC limits based on public health data.
The current patchwork is failing—it’s time for smart policy over ideology."
-
Questionnaire2026-09-22
Said she supports "a legal, responsibly regulated hemp 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 support a legal, responsibly regulated hemp industry in Texas that protects consumers and children while providing clear and predictable rules for farmers and businesses.
Regulation should be based on credible science and measurable public-health outcomes, not fear or unsupported claims. Texas should require strict age verification, independent product testing, accurate potency and ingredient labeling, child-resistant packaging, appropriate dosage standards, and meaningful enforcement against businesses that sell to minors or offer contaminated, mislabeled, or unlawful products. Responsible businesses that follow the rules should be able to compete in a fair marketplace without excessive fees or unnecessary regulatory barriers.
As federal law and scientific evidence evolve, Texas should review its framework accordingly. Our goal should be straightforward: protect Texans, hold bad actors accountable, preserve adult choice, and give legitimate Texas farmers and small businesses a fair opportunity to succeed." Asked who should be permitted to sell THC, to whom, at what dose, in what form and subject to what safeguards: "THC-containing products should be sold only by properly licensed or registered businesses to adults 21 and older, with strict age verification.
Products should be independently tested for potency and contaminants, accurately labeled with THC content and serving information, and sold in tamper-evident, child-resistant packaging that is not designed to appeal to children. Appropriate potency and serving limits should be established using credible scientific and public-health evidence and should account for product type. Texas should enforce these standards consistently and impose meaningful penalties on businesses that sell to minors or sell contaminated, mislabeled, or otherwise unlawful products."
On keeping a legal, regulated hemp marketplace, the comments read: "I support a legal, well-regulated marketplace that protects consumers and keeps products away from minors. Texas should require appropriate testing, accurate labeling, age restrictions, and meaningful enforcement rather than treating responsible businesses and adult consumers as criminals." 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, "Support"; on retail regulation, "Reasonable statewide licensing/registration"; on tax policy, "Depends on the proposed tax"; 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
No source of this candidate’s own is on this card. Everything below was published by someone else. So the absence of a cannabis position here is weaker evidence than it looks: it may mean only that this candidate has not published a platform anywhere we have found, or has published one somewhere we are not permitted to read.
No record compiled yet. Nothing on cannabis — no vote, bill, statement or endorsement — was found in any source we could read. 2 limits on that search are recorded with it.
What was checked for Anissa Chilmeran, and the limits on it
Checked on 2026-09-18: the member-level rolls of every 2025 cannabis and hemp record vote in the official Texas House and Senate Journals — SB 3 and HB 46 in the regular session, SB 5 in the first called session and SB 6 in the second — including every Yea, Nay, present-not-voting, absent and statement-of-vote list, where this name does not appear because they hold no Texas legislative office; the author, joint-author, coauthor and sponsor tables of every cannabis, hemp, THC and Compassionate Use bill filed in the 87th, 88th and 89th Legislatures and the 2025 called sessions, at the Legislature's own bill-lookup service; and a press sweep including the Spectrum News report on the March 2026 Austin candidate forum on THC policy, which quotes six candidates by name and does not include them.
Also checked, and read in full on 2026-09-18: this candidate's Ballotpedia profile at ballotpedia.org/Anissa_Chilmeran, including any Candidate Connection survey answers published there, which contains no mention of cannabis, marijuana, hemp, THC or CBD.
Their Ballotpedia profile was read in full on 2026-09-20 at ballotpedia.org/Anissa_Chilmeran (15720 characters). It contains no occurrence of cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hemp, THC, CBD, delta-8 or Compassionate Use. When we re-read their Ballotpedia profile on 2026-10-15, it recorded that they had not completed Ballotpedia’s 2026 Candidate Connection survey.
⚠️This card does not tell you whether this candidate held a seat in an earlier Legislature, but the question is now narrower. Read on 2026-10-15, from each chamber’s own journal: the roll of members-elect that the Texas House Journal prints, district by district, on the first day of every regular session from the 75th Legislature (1997) through the 89th (2025), and every senator the Texas Senate Journal names with a district on the first day of every regular session from the 76th (1999) through the 89th.
For the 89th those are journals.house.texas.gov/hjrnl/89r/pdf/89RDAY01FINAL.PDF and journals.senate.texas.gov/SJRNL/89R/HTML/89RSJ01-14-F.HTM and every journal read is listed on this site’s corrections page. No one by this candidate’s name appears in any of them. That is narrower than a negative answer. Those rolls name the members seated as each session opened, and in most years the Senate’s names the senators who were not up for election by surname alone, so a member who sat only in earlier sessions, who arrived at a special election and was never named in full on a later first day, or who served under another name would not be found this way.
If this candidate is one of those, there may be a cannabis voting record this site is missing.
⚠️Whether this candidate has a campaign site of their own is an open question here, and not a negative answer. This guide has not found one. It no longer claims to have looked in a way that could settle it, because the method this card used to cite was put to a case it was known to have passed and came back just as empty there. So if this candidate publishes a platform of their own, this guide may simply not have reached it, and the absence of a cannabis position below is weaker evidence than it looks.
A page at thehomelookup.com naming her was found and rejected: it is a real-estate agent biography, not a campaign site.
This card has been corrected. What earlier versions of it said, and what was wrong with them, is published in the corrections log.
No score: this candidate has no recorded vote or bill authorship on a cannabis measure. Silence is not a position, so nothing is inferred from it.
Campaign sites and voter guides checked for Anissa Chilmeran
Pages read in full:
- onyourballot.vote411.org/m/race-detail.do?id=50429780 — sections on the page: Education Funding; Children; Border; Healthcare; Electricity; Water; Voter Representation; Higher Education; LGBTQ; Other Issues — the question set the local League of Women Voters chapter wrote for this race, read in full by us on 2026-10-06. Not one of its questions asks about cannabis, hemp or drug policy. The candidate answered, in free text of their own, and no answer of theirs contains, on a word boundary, cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hemp, hemp-derived, THC, thc-a, CBD, delta-8, delta-9, cannabinoid, dispensary, decriminalisation, psilocybin, Compassionate Use, consumable hemp, SB 3, Senate Bill 3, HB 1325 or HB 46.
- votetheperson.org/candidates/anissa-chilmeran — sections on the page: Candidate; Your match; Record; Sources — the whole of the independent candidate tracker Vote the Person's page for this candidate, read in full by us on 2026-10-06. The page states the office or district we have on file, so the identification is confirmed, and it cites 2 source(s) of its own. Marijuana is one of the issues it tracks by name, and it lists Marijuana among the 41 issues on which it found no public position for this candidate. ⚠️That is a second organisation reporting an empty search, not a statement by the candidate.
- bluevoterguide.org/district/TX/Texas_House_of_Representatives_District_61/38873/688 — sections on the page: the candidates and endorsements the Blue Voter Guide publishes for Texas House District 61, read in full by us on 2026-10-06. An earlier check recorded this page as one we could not read, because the host then answered HTTP 403 Forbidden; on this date it answered normally and was read, so it has moved off the could-not-read list onto this one. It lists this candidate by name with no endorsements and no stated positions, and carries no occurrence of cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hemp, hemp-derived, THC, thc-a, CBD, delta-8, delta-9, cannabinoid, dispensary, decriminalisation, psilocybin, Compassionate Use, consumable hemp, SB 3, Senate Bill 3, HB 1325 or HB 46.
- ivoterguide.com/race/32436/election/1471 — sections on the page: a race page listing the three candidates with no survey answers
- communityimpact.com/mckinney/election/qa-meet-the-candidates-running-for-texas-house-of-representatives-district-61 — sections on the page: Community Impact's candidate Q&A for this November race, published 2026-08-28, read in full by us on 2026-10-17 (HTTP 200). The page names this candidate as the Green Party candidate and prints, under every one of the questions put to the candidate, "Candidate did not respond to the questionnaire before press time." None of the questions asks about cannabis, and nothing printed under this candidate's name contains, on a word boundary, cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hemp, THC, CBD, delta-8, cannabinoid or Compassionate Use. This records an unanswered questionnaire, not a silence of the candidate's own choosing.
- www.lwvcollin.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=980754&module_id=493015 — sections on the page: The League of Women Voters of Collin County's candidate forum page for the November election, read by us on 2026-10-17 (HTTP 200). It lists the League's "Forum hosted by LWV Collin County - Saturday, October 3", whose 12:00 session was for State Representative, Districts 33 and 61, and against this candidate's name it prints "Anissa Chilmeran (G) - no response". The recordings of that forum are videos, which this guide did not transcribe. This records a forum the candidate did not take part in, not a silence of the candidate's own choosing.
Could not be read, so nothing is concluded from them:
- www.txgreens.org/2026_nominated_candidates — ⚠️Not read: www.txgreens.org publishes a robots.txt asking automated tools not to read it, and this guide honours that. The page may well say something; we are not entitled to look, so nothing is concluded from it either way.
All 3 candidates on this ballot are listed.