US House, District 12

Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Votes 1180 and 1181, motions to table two amendments to SB 339, the Compassionate Use Act on low-THC cannabis, and Yea on Record Vote 1182 passing SB 339 to third reading, 96 Yeas to 34 Nays.

journals.house.texas.gov

Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 1180, the motion to table Amendment No. 1 by Representative Moody to SB 339, an amendment that would have changed the bill from a physician prescribing low-THC cannabis to a physician recommending it and added definitions of an adequate supply and of a caregiver. The motion to table prevailed, 99 Yeas to 32 Nays. The bill is captioned "relating to the medical use of low-THC cannabis and the regulation of related organizations and individuals; requiring a dispensing organization to obtain a license to dispense low-THC cannabis and any employee of a dispensing organization to obtain a registration; authorizing fees."

The journal prints this member in the Yea list as "Goldman"; the printed form is matched to this member against the whole membership of the 84th House, who sat for House District 97.

WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: This is a vote on a motion to table a floor amendment to Senate Bill 339, not a vote on the bill itself. A floor amendment, and a motion to table one, does not take the direction of the bill it is offered to, and this site does not assert a direction for it. The record is shown because the journal names the member, and it is kept out of the score.

journals.house.texas.gov

Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 1181, the motion to table Amendment No. 2 by Representative Moody to SB 339, an amendment that would have added a physician recommendation alongside a prescription throughout the bill. The motion to table prevailed, 98 Yeas to 33 Nays. The bill is captioned "relating to the medical use of low-THC cannabis and the regulation of related organizations and individuals; requiring a dispensing organization to obtain a license to dispense low-THC cannabis and any employee of a dispensing organization to obtain a registration; authorizing fees."

The journal prints this member in the Yea list as "Goldman"; the printed form is matched to this member against the whole membership of the 84th House, who sat for House District 97.

WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: This is a vote on a motion to table a floor amendment to Senate Bill 339, not a vote on the bill itself. A floor amendment, and a motion to table one, does not take the direction of the bill it is offered to, and this site does not assert a direction for it. The record is shown because the journal names the member, and it is kept out of the score.

journals.house.texas.gov

Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 1203, final passage of SB 339 on the medical use of low-THC cannabis, 108 Yeas to 38 Nays.

journals.house.texas.gov

Signed on as a coauthor of HB 2107 in the 85th Legislature, which would have authorised the possession, use, cultivation, distribution and delivery of medical cannabis for patients with certain debilitating medical conditions. It died in committee. The Legislature’s author table records the sign-on date as 2017-05-03.

capitol.texas.gov, capitol.texas.gov

Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 609, final passage of HB 1325 regulating hemp production and hemp products, 144 Yeas to 0 Nays.

WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but not counted in the score: This site deliberately does not score HB 1325 (86th Legislature), so a record on it moves no number.

journals.house.texas.gov

Texas House: recorded Present, not voting, while in the chair, on Record Vote 780, passage to engrossment of CSHB 63 reducing the consequences of certain marihuana and paraphernalia possession offenses, 98 Yeas to 43 Nays.

WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but not counted in the score: This site scores a vote only on a recorded Yea or Nay, and reads no direction into an absence or a present-not-voting.

journals.house.texas.gov

Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 801, third-reading passage of HB 63 on marihuana and paraphernalia possession penalties, 103 Yeas to 42 Nays.

journals.house.texas.gov

Texas House: recorded Present, not voting on Record Vote 1097, third-reading passage of HB 3703, widening the medical conditions for which low-THC cannabis may be prescribed under the Compassionate-Use Program, which carried 133 Yeas to 10 Nays. The journal prints the entry as “Goldman(C)”, its mark for the member then presiding in the chair. He sat in the Texas House for District 97 at the time.

WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but not counted in the score: This site scores a vote only on a recorded Yea or Nay, and reads no direction into an absence or a present-not-voting.

journals.house.texas.gov, capitol.texas.gov

Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 1713, the motion to concur in Senate amendments to HB 1325 on hemp production, 140 Yeas to 3 Nays.

WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but not counted in the score: This site deliberately does not score HB 1325 (86th Legislature), so a record on it moves no number.

journals.house.texas.gov

Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 1824, the motion to concur in the Senate’s changes to HB 3703, the Compassionate-Use Program expansion, sending it to the Governor, which carried 136 Yeas to 5 Nays.

journals.house.texas.gov, capitol.texas.gov

Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 384, House passage of HB 1694, creating a defence to prosecution for small-amount possession when a person seeks emergency help for an overdose, which carried 145 Yeas to 2 Nays.

journals.house.texas.gov, capitol.texas.gov

Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 535, final passage of HB 1535 expanding the Compassionate Use Program for low-THC cannabis, 134 Yeas to 12 Nays.

journals.house.texas.gov

Texas House: shown Yea on Record Vote 596, passage of HB 441 on marihuana and paraphernalia possession penalties, 88 Yeas to 40 Nays, and filed a statement of vote in the House Journal reading: "I was shown voting yes. I intended to vote no."

journals.house.texas.gov

Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 1688, the motion to concur in Senate amendments to HB 1535 on the Compassionate Use Program expansion, 119 Yeas to 25 Nays.

journals.house.texas.gov

Texas House: recorded Yea on Record Vote 143, passage to engrossment of CSHB 1805 on the medical use of low-THC cannabis, 121 Yeas to 23 Nays.

journals.house.texas.gov

Texas House: recorded Present, not voting, while in the chair, on Record Vote 153, third-reading passage of HB 1805, 127 Yeas to 19 Nays.

WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but not counted in the score: This site scores a vote only on a recorded Yea or Nay, and reads no direction into an absence or a present-not-voting.

journals.house.texas.gov

Texas House: recorded Nay on Record Vote 605, third-reading passage of HB 218 reducing the consequences of possession of marihuana, certain tetrahydrocannabinols, synthetic cannabinoids and paraphernalia, 87 Yeas to 59 Nays.

journals.house.texas.gov

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.

clerk.house.gov, govinfo.gov, govinfo.gov

US House: Recorded Yea on House Roll Call 285, the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 5371. This was not a standalone cannabis vote: it was the shutdown-ending appropriations package, which carried a provision redefining hemp to bar hemp-derived products above 0.4 mg total THC.

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.

clerk.house.gov

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.

clerk.house.gov, govinfo.gov

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.

clerk.house.gov, govinfo.gov

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.

clerk.house.gov, govinfo.gov, govinfo.gov

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.

clerk.house.gov, govinfo.gov

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.

clerk.house.gov, govinfo.gov

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.

clerk.house.gov, govinfo.gov, govinfo.gov

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.

clerk.house.gov, govinfo.gov

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.

clerk.house.gov, govinfo.gov

Answered the Fort Worth Report candidate questionnaire question "What is your stance on banning or regulating THC products?", published 2026-02-16: "We need cannabis legalization, not bans."

fortworthreport.org