Texas House, District 94
A Dallas-Fort Worth area district. No candidate on this ballot holds Texas legislative office, so none appears in a 2025 cannabis or hemp roll call. What each candidate has said or answered is listed below in date order, each with its own source.
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.
- 2026-02-03 questionnaire — Stated plainly that she is opposed to reclassifying or legalising marijuana. That is opposition to expanding lawful access, though she does not call for removing the access that exists, counted as -1 at weight 2
Average on the −2 to +2 scale: -1. 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: "I serve on the Tarrant County MHMR board which helps people with drug addiction problems. When I researched what their thoughts were, they all said that marijuana is a "Gateway" drug to more serious drugs.
There is also evidence that people do not consume just one gummy bear. In fact, they tend to consume multiple gummy bears throughout the day which exceeds the legal limits. for these reasons, I am opposed to reclassifying or legalizing marijuana drugs."
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.
- 2026-02-16 questionnaire — Answered against bans and punitive fee schemes, supporting smart regulation with accountability, 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: "I think it will reduce tax burden, improve medical research opportunities, and offer legitimate pathways for seniors and others that may benefit from it."
This answer is shown but not scored: the question asks what the candidate expects to happen, and this reply describes an expectation without stating a position of their own on lawful access.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: Predicts that rescheduling will reduce the tax burden, improve medical research and open pathways for seniors. It describes expected effects without stating a position of her own on lawful access.
-
Questionnaire2026-02-16
Answered the Fort Worth Report candidate questionnaire question "What is your stance on banning or regulating THC products?", published 2026-02-16: "Instead of bans or punitive fee schemes designed to shut down the industry, I support smart regulation with accountability - protecting consumers, supporting responsible businesses, preserving jobs, and ensuring revenue can be directed toward public priorities like public education, health services, and enforcement.
Texas needs clear, enforceable policies: age restrictions, lab testing, accurate labeling, limits on potency and serving size, strong enforcement against bad actors, and restrictions on marketing that targets kids. Those opposing a blanket ban have raised serious concerns that deserve to be taken seriously. A ban could cut off access for veterans who rely on THC products, cost roughly 50,000 Texans their jobs, and reduce state sales tax revenue by more than $256 million, in addition to significant losses for local governments.
Pushing these products into an unregulated market would make them less safe, not more."
All 2 candidates on this ballot are listed.