US House, District 11
A US House seat on the 120th Congress map, covering all of Brown, Coke, Coleman, Concho, Ector, Glasscock, Irion, Kimble, Llano, Mason, McCulloch, Menard, Midland, Runnels, San Saba, Sterling and Tom Green counties, part of north Travis County, part of south Burnet County and part of south Williamson County. The records below are votes and cosponsorships in Congress, listed in date order, each with its own source.
Which map this is. This seat is drawn on the 120th Congress map, the one on the 3 November ballot. Measured by area — not by population — 98% of it was inside district 11 on the 119th Congress map, which stands until the end of 2026; the rest came from district 31 (0.8%) and district 10 (0.5%). These lines barely moved, so the member who holds seat 11 today was elected over almost exactly this ground. Check your own address in the district finder.
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.
- 2024-06-04 vote — Mast amendment on Veterans Affairs forms, counted as +1 at weight 1.8
- 2022-07-26 vote — Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, counted as -1 at weight 1.8
- 2022-04-04 vote — Medical Marijuana Research Act, counted as +1 at weight 1.8
- 2022-04-01 vote — MORE Act (117th Congress), counted as -2 at weight 1.8
- 2022-04-01 vote — Raskin amendment on security clearances, counted as -1 at weight 1.8
- 2021-07-27 vote — Lesko amendment striking federal marijuana research funding, counted as -1 at weight 1.8
- 2021-04-19 vote — SAFE Banking Act (117th Congress), counted as -1 at weight 1.8
Average on the −2 to +2 scale: -0.571. Full method and the bill table.
-
Vote2021-04-19
Recorded Nay on H.R. 1996, the SAFE Banking Act (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended) on 2021-04-19.
-
Vote2021-07-27
Recorded Yea on House Roll Call 229, the Lesko amendment to H.R. 4502, striking language that let federal research funding go to institutions of higher education conducting research on marijuana; the amendment failed, 147 Yeas to 276 Nays.
-
Vote2022-04-01
Recorded Nay on H.R. 3617, the MORE Act (On Passage) on 2022-04-01.
-
Vote2022-04-01
Recorded Nay on House Roll Call 103, the Gottheimer amendment to H.R. 3617, the MORE Act, authorising $10 million for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to study how law enforcement might detect marijuana impairment in drivers; the amendment was agreed to, 243 Yeas to 172 Nays.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: A study of impairment detection, which neither widens nor narrows who may lawfully possess cannabis. It is printed because it is a recorded vote on a cannabis question, and left out of the score because it takes no side on one.
-
Vote2022-04-01
Recorded Nay on House Roll Call 104, the Lamb amendment to H.R. 3617, the MORE Act, directing the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to study the workplace effects of legalisation in states that have legalised recreational use; the amendment was agreed to, 234 Yeas to 189 Nays.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: A study of workplace effects, which neither widens nor narrows who may lawfully possess cannabis. It is printed because it is a recorded vote on a cannabis question, and left out of the score because it takes no side on one.
-
Vote2022-04-01
Recorded Nay on House Roll Call 105, the Raskin amendment to H.R. 3617, the MORE Act, providing that cannabis use shall not be a reason to deny or rescind a security clearance; the amendment failed, 209 Yeas to 214 Nays.
-
Vote2022-04-04
Recorded Yea on House Roll Call 108, passage of H.R. 5657, the Medical Marijuana Research Act, as amended.
-
Vote2022-07-26
Recorded Nay on House Roll Call 392, passage of H.R. 8454, the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, as amended.
-
Vote2023-07-27
Recorded Yea on House Roll Call 380, on passage of H.R. 4366, making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024. The bill passed 219 to 211. The version the House passed contains section 421, which came from an amendment offered on 2023-07-26 by Representative Brian Mast of Florida, printed as No. 36 in House Report 118-158, that was agreed to by voice vote, so no individual position was recorded on the amendment itself.
Section 421 provides that "None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Veterans Affairs in this Act may be used to enforce Veterans Health Directive 1315" as it relates to the policy stating that "VHA providers are prohibited from completing forms or registering Veterans for participation in a State-approved marijuana program".
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but not counted in the score: This site deliberately does not score this vote (Passage of H.R. 4366, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill for fiscal 2024), so it moves no number.
Why this vote is not scored
The bill the House passed on 2023-07-27 (H.R. 4366: www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr4366eh/html/BILLS-118hr4366eh.htm) carried section 421, barring the Department of Veterans Affairs from spending that Act's funds to enforce Veterans Health Directive 1315 as it relates to the policy that "VHA providers are prohibited from completing forms or registering Veterans for participation in a State-approved marijuana program".
That section arrived as amendment 36 in House Report 118-158 (Mast of Florida), and the House took no recorded vote on it: rolls 372 to 378 of 2023 record votes on amendments 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 to this bill, and 36 is absent from that sequence. The only roll call touching it is roll 380, On Passage of the whole Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, 219 to 211 - a vote on military construction accounts, VA funding levels and every other rider in the bill, on which no member was given an opportunity to vote on the cannabis language by itself.
The Clerk's totals are Republican 219-2 and Democratic 0-209, and among the Texans holding this act the split is party-line without a single crossover, where the Blumenauer cannabis amendment of House Roll Call 174 of 2020 splits the delegation within party. Treated the same way as H.R. 5371 and H.R. 6500: shown on each member's page as evidence without moving their score. This is not the H.R. 8580 situation, where the recorded vote was the cannabis amendment.
Recorded here so that a future sweep does not score it.
-
Vote2024-06-04
Recorded Aye on House Roll Call 240, the Mast amendment to H.R. 8580 allowing Department of Veterans Affairs staff to complete forms for veterans in state-approved medical marijuana programs; the amendment was agreed to, 290 Yeas to 116 Nays.
-
Vote2025-06-25
Recorded Yea on House Roll Call 182 of 2025-06-25, on passage of H.R. 3944, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026. The bill passed 218 Yeas to 206 Nays. The version the House passed contains section 421, added on the floor the same day by an amendment offered by Representative David Joyce of Ohio that was agreed to by voice vote, so no individual positions were recorded on the amendment itself.
Section 421 reads in part: "None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Veterans Affairs in this Act may be used to enforce Veterans Health Directive 1315 as it relates to-- (1) the policy stating that ``VHA providers are prohibited from completing forms or registering Veterans for participation in a State-approved marijuana program''". The section appears in the engrossed House text and does not appear in the version reported to the House.
It also does not appear in the enacted text of Public Law 119-37, the law the bill was ultimately folded into.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: Stance left at zero on purpose. This was a vote on a whole appropriations bill running to hundreds of pages and covering entire departments. The cannabis-related language is one section inside it, and no member could vote on that section separately, so a Yea or a Nay here does not show what a member thinks about cannabis. The vote is recorded because it is a dated federal action on a bill that carried cannabis-related language, not because it measures a cannabis position.
-
Vote2025-11-12
On 2025-11-12 the U.S. House took roll call 285 on H R 5371, the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026, on the question the Clerk prints as "On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment". The motion passed 222-209, with 2 members not voting, and the bill became Public Law 119-37. They voted Yea. The Senate amendment being concurred in was the text that contained section 781, the federal hemp redefinition; the version the House had passed in September contained no hemp language.
Section 781 of that law rewrites the federal definition of hemp in section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1639o), effective 365 days after enactment: it measures the 0.3 percent limit as total tetrahydrocannabinols including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, excludes cannabinoids that cannot be naturally produced by the plant or that were synthesized or manufactured outside it, and caps final consumer hemp-derived cannabinoid products at 0.4 milligrams per container of total tetrahydrocannabinols plus other cannabinoids with similar effects.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: Shown but not scored. Roll call 285 was a motion to concur in a Senate amendment to a whole government funding act, and no member could vote on the hemp language in it separately, so a Yea or a Nay here is a position on federal funding rather than a recorded position on hemp. The same treatment is applied to every other omnibus funding vote on this site. What the law did is described above; the vote is left in the record and out of the arithmetic.
-
Vote2026-01-08
Recorded Yea on House Roll Call 5, the question the Clerk records as "On Retaining Division A" of H.R. 6938, the division that became the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026 and that carries Sec. 531, barring Department of Justice funds from being used, with respect to Texas and 46 other States, "to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana", along with Sec.
530 on industrial hemp research; Division A was retained, 375 Yeas to 47 Nays.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: An omnibus vote, printed but not scored. The question was whether to retain the whole Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies division of H.R. 6938 - the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce, NASA and the National Science Foundation - and the medical-marijuana rider at Sec. 531 was one provision inside it. This is the narrowest recorded House vote available on a division carrying that rider, which is why it is shown; it is still not a vote on the rider, so reading a cannabis position out of it would not be fair to the member.
-
Vote2026-01-08
Recorded Yea on House Roll Call 7, the question the Clerk records as "On Passage" of H.R. 6938, the Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026, which became Public Law 119-74 on 23 January 2026 and whose Division A carries Sec. 531, barring Department of Justice funds from being used, with respect to Texas and 46 other States, "to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana"; the bill passed, 397 Yeas to 28 Nays.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: An omnibus vote, printed but not scored. The question was final passage of H.R. 6938, a three-division appropriations package covering Commerce, Justice and Science; Energy and Water Development; and the Interior and Environment. The medical-marijuana rider at Sec. 531 and the industrial-hemp-research rider at Sec. 530 rode inside it, and a Yea or Nay here is a position on the package, not on either rider.
-
Vote2026-01-14
Recorded Yea on House Roll Call 28 of 2026-01-14, on passage of H.R. 7006, the Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026. The bill passed 341 Yeas to 79 Nays. The version the House passed contains section 809, which reads in part: "None of the Federal funds contained in this Act may be used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
801 et seq.) or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative." Marijuana is a schedule I substance under that Act. The same restriction appears as section 809 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, Public Law 119-75.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: Stance left at zero on purpose. This was a vote on a whole appropriations bill running to hundreds of pages and covering entire departments. The cannabis-related language is one section inside it, and no member could vote on that section separately, so a Yea or a Nay here does not show what a member thinks about cannabis. The vote is recorded because it is a dated federal action on a bill that carried cannabis-related language, not because it measures a cannabis position.
-
Vote2026-01-22
Recorded Yea on House Roll Call 45, the question the Clerk records as "On Passage" of H.R. 7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, whose Division E carries Sec. 809, barring Federal funds in that Act from being used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation "to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act" or "or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative"; the bill passed, 341 Yeas to 88 Nays.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: An omnibus vote, printed but not scored. The question was final passage of H.R. 7148, a package of ten divisions covering Defense; Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education; Transportation and Housing; Financial Services and General Government; National Security and the Department of State; and more. The schedule I and tetrahydrocannabinols rider at Sec. 809 sat in one of those divisions, and a Yea or Nay here is a position on the package, not on the rider.
-
Vote2026-02-03
Recorded Yea on House Roll Call 53, the question the Clerk records as "On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments" to H.R. 7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, which became Public Law 119-75 on 3 February 2026 and whose Division E carries Sec. 809, barring Federal funds in that Act from being used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation "to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act" or "or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative"; the motion was agreed to, 217 Yeas to 214 Nays.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: An omnibus vote, printed but not scored. The question was whether to concur in the Senate amendments to the whole of H.R. 7148, the ten-division package that became Public Law 119-75; the schedule I and tetrahydrocannabinols rider at Sec. 809 was one provision in its Financial Services and General Government division. It is shown separately from the 22 January passage vote because several members are recorded differently on the two questions, and merging them into one number would hide that.
A Yea or Nay here is a position on the package, not on the rider.
-
Vote2026-05-15
Recorded Yea on House Roll Call 175 of 2026-05-15, on passage of H.R. 8469, making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027. The bill passed 400 Yeas to 15 Nays. The version the House passed contains section 420, added on the floor on 2026-05-14 by House Amendment 216, offered by Representative Brian Mast of Florida and agreed to by voice vote, so no individual positions were recorded on the amendment itself.
Section 420 reads in part: "None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Veterans Affairs in this Act may be used to enforce Veterans Health Directive 1315 as it relates to-- (1) the policy stating that ``VHA providers are prohibited from completing forms or registering Veterans for participation in a State-approved marijuana program''". The section appears in the engrossed House text and does not appear in the version reported to the House.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: Stance left at zero on purpose. This was a vote on a whole appropriations bill running to hundreds of pages and covering entire departments. The cannabis-related language is one section inside it, and no member could vote on that section separately, so a Yea or a Nay here does not show what a member thinks about cannabis. The vote is recorded because it is a dated federal action on a bill that carried cannabis-related language, not because it measures a cannabis position.
-
Vote2026-06-04
Recorded Yea on House Roll Call 205 of 2026-06-04, on passage of H.R. 8646, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2027. The bill passed 213 Yeas to 210 Nays. The bill contains section 737, which provides that none of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act may be used "to prohibit the transportation, processing, sale, or use of hemp, or seeds of such plant, that is grown or cultivated in accordance with section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 or subtitle G of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, within or outside the State in which the hemp is grown or cultivated."
The section appears in the text reported to the House as well as in the engrossed text, so it was not added on the floor.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: Stance left at zero on purpose. This was a vote on a whole appropriations bill running to hundreds of pages and covering entire departments. The cannabis-related language is one section inside it, and no member could vote on that section separately, so a Yea or a Nay here does not show what a member thinks about cannabis. The vote is recorded because it is a dated federal action on a bill that carried cannabis-related language, not because it measures a cannabis position.
-
Vote2026-09-01
Recorded Yea on House Roll Call 286 of 2026-09-01, on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 6500, the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027. The motion passed 370 Yeas to 48 Nays and the bill was signed on 2026-09-02 as Public Law 119-103. Section 2019 of that law delays most of the new federal hemp definition enacted a year earlier: "Until December 11, 2026, the amendments made by section 781 of division B of Public Law 119-37 (7 U.S.C.
1639o note) shall only apply with respect to products described in paragraphs (1)(C)(ii)(I) and (1)(C)(iv)(I) of section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1639o) (as amended by such section 781)." The effect is that from 2026-11-12 until 2026-12-11 the new definition reaches only products containing cannabinoids that are not capable of being naturally produced by a cannabis plant; the rest of the new definition, including the 0.3 percent total-tetrahydrocannabinols test and the 0.4 milligram per container cap, begins on 2026-12-11.
WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: Stance left at zero on purpose. H.R. 6500 was a government-funding bill: it continued federal appropriations for fiscal year 2027 and carried dozens of unrelated extensions. The hemp provision, section 2019, was one section inside it, and the House voted on the whole package under suspension of the rules, so no member could vote on the hemp language separately. A Yea or Nay here does not show what a member thinks about hemp, and the Nays came from both parties.
The vote is recorded because it is the dated federal action that moved the hemp deadline, not because it measures a cannabis position.
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 Claire Reynolds, and the limits on it
Checked on 2026-09-18: their campaign site and its published issue pages — affordability, healthcare, immigration, energy, women’s rights, scientific research and artificial intelligence — plus Internet Archive captures of those pages from February to May 2026. A route named for marijuana exists in the site’s own page manifest but no such page is published: every URL form returns the homepage, it is absent from the sitemap and unlinked from the issues index, and no Archive capture of it exists.
We therefore cannot state anything about its content or her position.
Also checked: their Ballotpedia entry, which was not retrievable by our tooling and has no Internet Archive capture; the Fort Worth Report 2026 questionnaire series, which asked candidates directly about THC products but covered only districts 6, 12 and 24; the Spectrum News report of 2026-03-03 on Texas candidates and THC policy, which does not name them; and the full membership roll of the 89th Texas Legislature, where they do not appear.
Also checked, and read in full on 2026-09-18: this candidate's Ballotpedia profile at ballotpedia.org/Claire_Reynolds, including any Candidate Connection survey answers published there, which contains no mention of cannabis, marijuana, hemp, THC or CBD.
The candidate's own campaign site was read on 2026-09-20 at www.clairereynoldsforcongress.org — found by search and confirmed to name this candidate before it was attributed to them. 5 pages were read: the homepage, any JavaScript bundle it loads, and the pages linked from it. None contains cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hemp, THC, CBD or Compassionate Use.
⚠️This covers the reachable site, not necessarily the whole site: a page that nothing links to cannot be found this way, and at least one Texas candidate keeps their platform on exactly such a page.
Their Ballotpedia profile was read in full on 2026-09-20 at ballotpedia.org/Claire_Reynolds (29252 characters). It contains no occurrence of cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hemp, THC, CBD, delta-8 or Compassionate Use. They completed a Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey — free-text answers they wrote themselves — and it raises no cannabis subject.
The site's own sitemap was read on 2026-09-21, which reaches pages nothing links to. Their campaign site publishes a sitemap listing 51 page(s), of which 25 were read on that date and all 51 on 2026-10-06 — the sweep skips assets and archive listings rather than prose — and none of those pages contains cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hemp, THC, CBD or Compassionate Use.
⚠️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.
The host stopped refusing automated readers and the site was read again in full on 2026-10-06, at www.clairereynoldsforcongress.org.
Re-read in full on 2026-10-06, after this host stopped refusing automated readers. Until 2026-09-20 its robots.txt named ClaudeBot, Claude-User and Claude-SearchBot and told each of them "Disallow: /"; it now publishes only "User-agent: *" with an empty "Disallow:", which permits everything, so the site was gated afresh and then read. All 51 pages in the site's own sitemap were read — the September sweep had reached 25 of them — together with the site's own full-text exports at /llms.txt and /llms-full.txt, 8,301 and 88,985 characters.
Identity confirmed on the site itself before anything was attributed: it names "Claire Reynolds" as "a Democratic attorney running for U.S. Congress in Texas's 11th Congressional District" (www.clairereynoldsforcongress.org/llms.txt). Searched on word boundaries for cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hemp, THC, CBD, Compassionate Use, delta-8, dispensary, decriminaliz and cannabinoid, over extracted text rather than markup.
Not one of the eleven terms occurs anywhere on the site. The route named for marijuana that this card has reported since 2026-09-18 is still in the site's internal page manifest and still publishes no page: the manifest pairs the slug "marijuana" with page id 6b085368-237d-4074-b262-c301c6580e73, and requesting it returns the homepage byte for byte, exactly as the unpublished draft slugs "get-money-out-of-politics", "roll-back-tariffs", "issue-1" and "issue-2" beside it in the same manifest do, while every genuinely published issue page returns different bytes.
So the slug marks a page that was never published, and this guide still states nothing about what it might have said or about her position. This is a site we read and found silent on cannabis, not a site we could not read.
This card has been corrected. What an earlier version of it said, and what was wrong with it, 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 Claire Reynolds
Pages read in full:
- www.clairereynoldsforcongress.org their own site — sections on the page: Read 2026-09-20. No cannabis, marijuana, hemp, THC, CBD or Compassionate Use anywhere on the page. Read 2026-10-17 in a fresh crawl starting from the homepage: 52 pages read at HTTP 200 (the homepage, the site’s sitemaps, every page it links to one level down, and the pages under its issues and news sections). No cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hemp, THC, CBD, delta-8, cannabinoid, rescheduling, Schedule iii, safer Banking or decriminalisation term on a word boundary in the text or the raw page source of any page read. The site’s page data lists an address ending /marijuana, but that address redirects to the homepage (HTTP 307) and carries no text, and the Internet Archive holds no capture of it. Nothing published there was found. The same crawler, run the same day from each homepage, found the published cannabis planks on three campaign sites used as controls.
- www.oaoa.com/local-news/pfluger-reynolds-debate-during-pbs-forum — sections on the page: Read 2026-10-17, HTTP 200. The Odessa American’s report of the hour-long Basin PBS debate between this candidate and Rep. August Pfluger, published 2026-10-06. It covers oil and gas, data centers, regulation of artificial intelligence, the Protect College Sports Act, tariffs, Iran, license-plate cameras, and the border and immigration. It is a reporter’s account of the debate, not a transcript, and it contains no occurrence of cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hemp, THC, CBD, delta-8 or Compassionate Use.
- communityimpact.com/northwest-austin/election/qa-meet-the-us-house-district-11-candidates — sections on the page: A Community Impact candidate Q&A for this race, published 2026-09-01, printing the candidate’s own answers to the paper’s questions, read in full by us on 2026-10-17 (HTTP 200). None of the paper’s questions asks about cannabis, hemp or THC, and no answer of theirs contains cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hemp, THC, CBD, delta-8, cannabinoid, dispensary, decriminalisation or Compassionate Use.
- austinvotersguide.org/LWVAA-VG-EN.pdf — sections on the page: The League of Women Voters of the Austin Area’s printed Voters Guide for the 2026-11-03 election (a PDF the publisher’s server dates 2026-10-15), which prints the candidate’s own answers to the League’s questions for this race, read in full by us on 2026-10-17 (HTTP 200). None of the League’s questions asks about cannabis, hemp or THC, and no answer of theirs contains cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hemp, THC, CBD, delta-8, cannabinoid, dispensary, decriminalisation or Compassionate Use.
All 2 candidates on this ballot are listed.