🔍 Read the full analysis: Why So Many Local Ballots Turned Against Data Centers on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on monitors, keyboards and dev gear
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A public tracker reported that the side favoring restrictions on data centers won or was leading in 46 of 47 local measures on November 3, 2026. The measures ranged from bans to temporary pauses and advisory questions, and results remain unofficial; the tracker’s count and classifications are not the same as a single nationwide vote on data centers.
Voters in 10 states considered 47 local measures concerning data centers on November 3, and the side favoring restrictions had won or was leading in 46 as of November 5, according to the Data Centers on the Ballot tracker. The measures varied widely—from outright bans to advisory questions—so the result signals broad local resistance to some data center proposals, not a single uniform rejection of the facilities.
The tracker, built by polling and data firm Redbud Consulting, classified each measure’s restrictive outcome as “Restrict” and its permissive outcome as “Allow.” It reported 47 measures with results as of 12:30 p.m. Eastern on November 5. Its figures included 41 counts complete for election night and six still being counted. All results were described as unofficial, not certified.
The tracker’s total changed after election night. At 6:16 a.m. Eastern on November 4, it listed 45 measures, with results posted for 40. It later added a non-binding question in Belvidere, New Jersey, and a charter amendment in Piqua, Ohio. Ballotpedia had listed 41 measures before the vote, reflecting differences in which local questions each count included.
The votes covered different kinds of decisions: 37 binding measures and 10 advisory questions, according to the source material. Proposals included bans, limits often set at 25 megawatts, temporary moratoriums, rezoning decisions and rules requiring voter approval. Seven results were checked against official election sites in Kansas, Nevada, Florida and North Dakota and matched the tracker; the report said it relied on the tracker and local reporting for many others.
Infographic 01 · Data centers on the ballot
Where “45 measures” comes from
One public tracker did the counting. Its numbers grew as results and late additions came in. We checked seven results against official election sites.
local ballot measures on data centers went against them on unofficial counts, 5 Nov 2026, 12:30 p.m. ET. The one exception: Harwood, North Dakota.
- 3 NovBallotpedia: 41 measuresListed before the vote · 10 states
- 4 Nov, 6:16 a.m.Tracker: 45 measures40 with results · 39 against data centers, 1 for
- 4 NovHeadlines: “45 measures”33 won, 6 leading, 1 lost, 5 not reported
- 5 Nov, 12:30 p.m.Tracker: 47 measuresAll with results · 46 against, 1 for · 6 still counting
- Emporia, KSban over 10 MW · Lyon County4,346 : 2,891
- Americus, KSban · Lyon County274 : 127
- El Dorado, KSten-year ban · Butler County2,972 : 1,183
- Ottawa, KSban over 25 MW · Franklin County2,882 : 1,129
- Edgewater, FLcharter ban · Volusia County7,875 : 2,328
- Boulder City, NVallow data centers? · Clark County2,064 : 4,947
- Harwood, NDreview rules · ND Secretary of State105 : 325
Yes : No, unofficial. All seven match the tracker to the vote.
- Ballotpedia lists 4 Maine measures, the tracker 8; Kansas 3 vs 4; New Jersey 1 vs 2. That is the gap from 41 to 47.
- The tracker added Belvidere (NJ) and Piqua (OH) after the first reports, so 45 became 47.
- 404 Media’s “40+ races in 13 states” also counts recalls and candidate races.
- Wilmington, Ohio alone accounts for 4 measures: one vote per rezoned parcel.
Sources: Data Centers on the Ballot (Redbud Consulting), 5 Nov 2026, 12:30 p.m. ET · Ballotpedia, 3 Nov 2026 · official results of Lyon, Butler and Franklin County (KS), Volusia County (FL), Clark County (NV), North Dakota Secretary of State. Nothing is certified yet.
Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
Local Votes Raise Site Risks
The results matter because local governments can shape whether and where data centers are built through zoning, land use and development rules. A binding ban or a requirement for public approval can alter the path for a proposed facility, while an advisory question may express opposition without directly changing local law. The practical effect depends on the wording and legal status of each measure.
For companies seeking sites, the spread of restrictive votes is a signal that local consent can be a project risk, particularly for future developments. The source material says many measures targeted proposed projects rather than campuses already under construction. A vote against a particular zoning change or land sale should not be read as a decision to close existing facilities.
The debates also concern competing local priorities. The source cites Gallup polling in which opponents named water and energy use, while supporters cited jobs and tax revenue. Ballot language in several places put those concerns into concrete terms such as megawatts or water use, though the results alone do not establish why each voter chose a side.
Popular right now
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
Ninja Flip Toaster Oven & Air Fryer, 8-in-1, Stainless Steel, SP151
Samsung QN65LS03FAFXZA 65 The Frame QLED 4K Art Mode Vision AI Smart TV (2025)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Different Questions, Different Rules
The headline tally combines measures that do not all ask the same question. In Hubbard, Ohio, voters considered whether to ban data centers of any size within city limits. The unofficial count was 2,622 in favor and 802 opposed, or 76.6% supporting the ban. In Boulder City, Nevada, voters rejected a question that would have allowed data centers on city-owned desert land: 2,064 voted yes and 4,947 no, according to the unofficial count cited in the source.
Other ballots addressed more limited policies. Some proposed bans applied only above a stated power capacity; others sought temporary pauses, changes to zoning or a public vote before approval. Wilmington, Ohio, voters undid four council decisions rezoning rural land for data centers, according to the source. These outcomes can all be grouped as restrictive in the tracker, but they do not amount to identical policies.
That distinction helps explain why published totals initially differed. The “45 measures” figure reported the morning after the election reflected the tracker at that time; the tracker later listed 47. Ballotpedia’s 41-measure count used a different tally, including fewer measures in Maine and Kansas and one fewer in New Jersey. Another report’s “40+ races across 13 states” also included recalls and candidate races, according to the source material.
“Nothing on the page is certified.”
— Data Centers on the Ballot tracker
Certification and Legal Effects
Final certified totals were not available in the source material. Six of the 47 counts were still being counted on November 5, and the tracker itself said its results were not certified. The report also says its author independently checked seven races, not all 47; for many remaining results, it relied on the tracker’s links to county sources and on local reporting.
The exact legal consequences of every measure are not detailed here. In particular, advisory questions do not necessarily change local rules, and the effect of binding measures depends on their text and applicable law. The aggregate figure also does not show why individual voters supported restrictions, or whether opposition was directed at data centers generally, a specific site, or a particular proposal.
Final Counts and Local Implementation
Election offices must complete their counts and certify results before the November 5 figures can be treated as final. The tracker may update its totals as that process continues. Readers and local officials will also need to review each ballot’s wording and the relevant local rules to determine what a result changes in practice.
For projects affected by binding measures, the next steps will depend on the local decision: a proposal may face a ban, a pause, a revised zoning process or a requirement for another public vote. The source material does not provide a timetable for those decisions or report what developers and local governments will do in response.
Key Questions
How many local data center measures were on the November 3 ballot?
The Data Centers on the Ballot tracker listed 47 measures across 10 states by November 5. Other published counts differed because they included different measures.
Did voters reject data centers in 46 places?
Not in one uniform sense. The tracker said the restrictive side won or was leading in 46 of 47 measures, but the ballots covered different policies, including bans, zoning decisions, temporary pauses and advisory questions.
Are the results final?
No. The results were unofficial as of November 5. Six counts were still being counted, and the tracker said its figures were not certified.
What was the exception to the restrictive trend?
Harwood, North Dakota, was the one measure where the restrictive side did not win or lead, according to the tracker. Its unofficial result on a question about review rules for large projects was 105 yes to 325 no.
What concerns did voters raise about data centers?
The source cites polling in which opponents named water and energy use, while supporters pointed to jobs and tax revenue. The ballot results do not establish the reasons behind each voter’s choice.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
