US House, District 26
A US House seat on the 120th Congress map, covering all of Cooke County, most of Denton County and most of Wise 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 — 94% of it was inside district 26 on the 119th Congress map, which stands until the end of 2026; the rest came from district 13 (5.9%). So where a candidate below is badged as holding seat 26 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 score: the 10 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.
-
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
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.
-
Vote2026-01-08
Recorded Nay 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 Nay 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 Nay 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 Nay 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 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 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 Steven Shook, and the limits on it
Checked on 2026-09-18: their campaign site, their Ballotpedia entry and a long-form interview. The Dallas morning news 2026 questionnaire was not retrievable: the page shell loads but the answers are rendered in the browser, so we have not read it and are not claiming it is silent.
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.
Also checked, and read in full on 2026-09-18: this candidate's Ballotpedia profile at ballotpedia.org/Steven_Shook, 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 shookforcongress2026.com — found by search and confirmed to name this candidate before it was attributed to them. 2 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/Steven_Shook (20023 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 8 page(s), of which 7 were read — 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.
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 Steven Shook
Pages read in full:
- onyourballot.vote411.org/m/race-detail.do?id=25712136 — sections on the page: Qualifications; Balance of Power; Immigration; Economy; Energy; Healthcare — 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.
- shookforcongress2026.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. Read 2026-10-17 in a fresh crawl starting from the homepage: 6 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 same crawler, run the same day from each homepage, found the published cannabis planks on three campaign sites used as controls.
- communityimpact.com/frisco/election/q-a-meet-the-candidates-running-for-u-s-house-district-26 — sections on the page: Community Impact's candidate Q&A for this November race, published 2026-09-15, read in full by us on 2026-10-17 (HTTP 200). The paper asked each candidate why they are running, what the biggest challenges facing the district are, how they plan to address them and what their top priorities would be; none of those questions asks about cannabis. The candidate answered, in free text of their own, and no answer printed under their name contains, on a word boundary, cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hemp, THC, CBD, delta-8, cannabinoid, dispensary or Compassionate Use.
- www.crosstimbersgazette.com/2026/10/01/meet-the-candidates-u-s-house-district-26-3 — sections on the page: The Cross Timbers Gazette's "Meet the Candidates: U.S. House District 26", published 2026-10-01, read in full by us on 2026-10-17 (HTTP 200). It prints a short statement from each candidate in the race. The statement under this candidate's name is in their own words, and it contains, on a word boundary, none of cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hemp, THC, CBD, delta-8, cannabinoid, dispensary or Compassionate Use.
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.
- 2024-04-21 statement — Platform plank calls the drug war a failure and supports decriminalising use, counted as +2 at weight 1.2
Average on the −2 to +2 scale: 2. Full method and the bill table.
-
Said2024-04-21
A campaign platform plank headed "DECRIMINALIZING USE OF DRUGS" — printed in capitals on the page, and quoted here as printed — appears on his candidate profile, reading in part: "The war on drugs has been a complete failure. Millions of lives have been disrupted or lost... Prisons have overflowed with nonviolent offenders." Three limits on this entry: the plank concerns drug policy generally and does not name cannabis; the date is that of the earliest Internet Archive capture containing the text, not a stated publication date; and it is 2024 campaign material, read from a capture of his candidate profile because his campaign domain no longer resolves.
All 3 candidates on this ballot are listed.