🔍 Read the full analysis: Why Data Center Plans Lost In 46 Of 47 Local Votes on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
As of November 5, an unofficial tracker listed 47 local data center measures across 10 states, with restrictions winning or leading in 46. The measures ranged from outright bans to temporary pauses and advisory questions, so the result is not a single nationwide vote on data centers. Results remain uncertified, and six counts were still underway.
Local measures seeking to restrict data centers won or were leading in 46 of 47 votes held across 10 states on November 3, according to the Data Centers on the Ballot tracker. The results are unofficial, six counts were still in progress as of November 5, and the measures asked voters to decide on sharply different policies—not one uniform ban on data centers.
The tracker, built by polling and data firm Redbud Consulting, listed 47 measures as of 12:30 p.m. Eastern on November 5. It grouped outcomes as “Restrict” or “Allow” to compare ballots with different wording. Of the 47, 41 counts were complete and six remained underway. Across the measures, the tracker counted 260,177 votes, with 72.8% cast for the outcome it classified as restrictive. That figure describes the combined votes in the tracked measures, not a national poll or a count of votes on an identical proposal.
The count changed after election day. At 6:16 a.m. Eastern on November 4, the tracker 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 election, using a different count: the source report says it included fewer measures in Maine, Kansas and New Jersey. The different totals reflect differing inclusion criteria, not necessarily conflicting results.
Examples show the range of outcomes and ballot language. In Hubbard, Ohio, voters approved a ban on data centers of any size by an unofficial 2,622 to 802, or 76.6% to 23.4%. In Boulder City, Nevada, voters rejected a proposal to allow data centers on city-owned desert land, 4,947 to 2,064. In Harwood, North Dakota, the sole measure where the tracker says the restrictive side did not lead, voters rejected proposed review rules for large projects, 325 to 105.
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 Shape Project Approvals
The results point to local consent as a material planning risk for companies seeking data center sites. A vote can block a proposed use of land, impose limits, or require additional public approval before a project moves forward. For developers, the practical effect depends on the specific measure and local law; the tally alone does not show how many projects will be delayed or canceled.
The underlying debate often weighs expected jobs and tax revenue against concerns about electricity and water. The source report cites Gallup polling in which opponents named water and energy, while supporters named jobs and tax revenue. Some ballot texts addressed these issues through specific limits, including megawatt caps or water-use rules. The 46-of-47 tally is politically relevant, but it does not establish that every voter opposed all data centers or that the same reasons drove each result.
Many measures target future proposals rather than facilities already being built, according to the source report. Restrictions could still affect where companies locate new capacity, how they negotiate with communities, and whether projects require a public vote. The scale of those consequences will depend on certification, legal implementation and future proposals.
Popular right now
Samsung 65-Inch The Frame Pro Neo QLED 4K TV (2026) Bundle with Modern Brown Bezel, HDMI Cables, and Home Theater Guide
Samsung QN65LS03FAFXZA 65 The Frame QLED 4K Art Mode Vision AI Smart TV (2025)
Dyson V8 Cyclone Cordless Vacuum
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
One Tally, Different Ballot Questions
The tracker includes measures dealing with bans, size caps, zoning referendums, developer agreements, voter-approval rules and advisory questions. It classifies each result by whether it would restrict or allow data center development. That makes a combined count possible, but it also means the 46-to-1 result should not be read as 46 localities adopting the same policy.
The source report says 37 measures were binding and 10 were advisory. Binding proposals included outright prohibitions, temporary moratoriums and votes overturning or approving land-use decisions. Advisory questions express voter views but do not themselves change local law. Some measures set thresholds—often a stated megawatt limit—while others concerned particular parcels or city-owned land.
The report says its author checked seven results against official election sources in Kansas, Nevada, Florida and North Dakota, and found they matched the tracker. For the other contests, the author relied on the tracker’s linked county sources and local coverage where available. The tracker itself says its posted results are not certified. The source report also cites the Tribune Chronicle’s account of Hubbard’s ban passing by 76% to 24%.
““nothing on the page is certified””
— Data Centers on the Ballot tracker
Certification and Policy Effects Remain Open
Final certified totals are not yet available in the source material, and six measures were still counting as of November 5. The tracker’s 46-of-47 tally could change if outstanding ballots alter a result. The report says it independently checked seven results, not all 47; for the rest, its account relies on linked election sources and local reporting.
It is also not yet clear how each measure will be implemented or challenged, or how many proposed data centers will be affected. A ban, a temporary pause, an advisory question and a rezoning referendum can have very different legal and practical consequences. The combined vote share does not identify voters’ individual reasons, and it cannot by itself show whether concerns about water, power, jobs or tax revenue drove a particular result.
Watch for Certified Counts and Local Action
Election offices must complete and certify the outstanding counts. Until then, the tracker’s numbers should be treated as unofficial results. Local governments will also need to apply binding measures under their own procedures; advisory results may inform debate without changing rules directly.
For developers and residents, the next milestones are the final canvasses and any local steps required to put approved measures into effect. The source material does not provide a timetable for certification, implementation or possible legal challenges. Those details—and the wording of each local measure—will determine what the election results mean for specific projects.
Key Questions
Did voters reject data centers in 46 places?
Not necessarily in the same sense. The tracker says the restrictive side won or led in 46 of 47 measures, but those measures covered different policies, including bans, temporary pauses, zoning decisions and advisory questions. The total is based on unofficial results as of November 5.
Are the results final?
No. The tracker labels its results uncertified. It reported 41 complete counts and six still underway as of 12:30 p.m. Eastern on November 5.
Why do reports give different totals for the number of measures?
Different trackers used different inclusion criteria. The source report says Data Centers on the Ballot listed 47 measures after adding two post-election entries, while Ballotpedia listed 41 before the vote and counted fewer measures in some states.
What was the one measure where restrictions did not lead?
In Harwood, North Dakota, voters rejected proposed review rules for large projects by an unofficial 325 to 105. The tracker classified that result as the exception to the overall restrictive trend.
What happens to projects affected by the votes?
The effect depends on the exact ballot measure and local implementation. Some votes can change zoning or impose restrictions; advisory questions do not themselves change law. The source material does not establish how many projects will be stopped, delayed or changed.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
