US House, District 18
A US House seat on the 120th Congress map, covering part of south Harris County and part of east Fort Bend County. No cannabis or hemp record was found for any candidate on this ballot, in Congress or in the Texas Legislature. Each was checked against the sources listed on their pages.
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 — 26% of it was inside district 18 on the 119th Congress map, which stands until the end of 2026; the rest came from district 9 (61%) and district 29 (13%). So where a candidate below is badged as holding seat 18 today, that badge means the seat number on this ballot — not all of the ground the seat now covers. Your own district may have changed number without your address changing. Check your own address in the district finder.
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 Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, and the limits on it
Checked on 2026-09-18: their Ballotpedia entry, which then recorded that they had not completed its Candidate Connection survey, and still recorded that when we re-read it on 2026-10-15; the Houston Chronicle's District 18 candidate roundup; and wire coverage of the nomination.
Also checked: the Spectrum News report of 2026-03-03 on Texas candidates and THC policy, the only outlet that put the question directly to 2026 congressional candidates, which does not quote them; and NORML’s Texas guide, which covers sitting members of Congress only. We also checked the full membership roll of the 89th Texas Legislature: this candidate is not a member, so there is no state roll call to attribute.
⚠️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.
⚠️No campaign site is recorded for This candidate, and we previously got This wrong. This card used to say that the candidate’s own campaign site had been read at texpolls.com. It is not his site: texpolls.com is an independent Texas elections tracker, titled "2026 Texas Elections: Senate, Governor, House Races & Polls", and the only place it mentions him is a row in a table of race matchups. We checked it again on 2026-10-02 and confirmed that.
Everything that sweep reported about "his site" has been withdrawn, because it was never about him. We have found no campaign site for this candidate.
Also checked, and read in full on 2026-10-05: this candidate’s Ballotpedia profile at ballotpedia.org/Ronald_Whitfield, which contains no mention of cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hemp, THC, CBD, delta-8 or Compassionate Use.
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 Ronald Dwayne Whitfield
Pages read in full:
- texpolls.com their own site — sections on the page: Read 2026-09-20. No cannabis, marijuana, hemp, THC, CBD or Compassionate Use anywhere on the page.
- communityimpact.com/heights-river-oaks-montrose/election/qa-meet-the-candidates-for-texas-18th-congressional-district — sections on the page: Community Impact’s candidate Q&A for this November race, published 2026-09-04, read in full by us on 2026-10-17 (HTTP 200). The paper put its own questions to each candidate and printed the answers it received. ⚠️The candidate did not answer: every question under their name reads that the candidate did not respond by press time. This records an unanswered questionnaire, not a silence of their own choosing. No cannabis question was asked, and no candidate in the race mentions any of the words cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hemp, hemp-derived, THC, thc-a, CBD, delta-8, delta-9, cannabinoid, dispensary, decriminalisation, psilocybin, Compassionate Use, SB 3, Senate Bill 3 or HB 46 anywhere on the page.
- onyourballot.vote411.org/race-detail.do?id=71560571 — sections on the page: The League of Women Voters’ VOTE411 voter guide page for this seat, read in full by us on 2026-10-17 (HTTP 200). It lists 2 candidates, the same field as the November 2026 ballot, this candidate among them as Ronald Dwayne Whitfield (Rep). The page prints no election date and no date for any answer. The questions were: What is your approach to federal infrastructure investment, and how would you prioritize funding for energy, transportation, flood mitigation, and resilience needs in your district? / If elected to office, what will you do to address rising costs, especially with regard to groceries, childcare, and housing? / What is your position on federal immigration enforcement and detention policies? What specific changes, if any, would you support to how those policies are implemented? / What changes, if any, to current laws related to voter registration, voter ID, and mail-in ballots would you support and why? Not one asks about cannabis, hemp or drug policy. ⚠️The Candidate has not answered: the guide shows every question under their name as “Candidate has not yet responded.” This records an unanswered questionnaire, not a silence of their own choosing.
No score: the 4 records below carry 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. They are shown in full so you can read them and judge for yourself.
-
Vote2026-02-03
Recorded Nay 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 Nay 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.
All 2 candidates on this ballot are listed.