🔍 Read the full analysis: What Voters Weighed In Local Data Center Ballot Measures on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A public tracker lists 47 local data center measures on the Nov. 3 ballot across 10 states. As of Nov. 5, the side favoring restrictions had won or was leading in 46, but the questions ranged from outright bans to advisory votes, and results were not certified.
Voters in 10 states considered local measures about data centers on Nov. 3, and the restriction side had won or was leading in 46 of 47 measures tracked as of Nov. 5, according to the public Data Centers on the Ballot tracker. The results are unofficial, and the questions varied widely: some would ban or limit facilities, while others were advisory or concerned specific land-use decisions.
The tracker, built by polling and data firm Redbud Consulting, groups differently worded ballot questions into two outcomes: “Restrict” and “Allow.” At 12:30 p.m. Eastern on Nov. 5, it listed 47 measures, with restriction leading in 46. It said 41 counts were complete for election night and six were still being counted. Across the measures, the tracker recorded 260,177 votes, of which 72.8% were on the restriction side. That total combines distinct local questions and is not a single statewide vote.
The total changed after election day. At 6:16 a.m. Eastern on Nov. 4, the tracker listed 45 measures, 40 with results. It later added a non-binding question in Belvidere, New Jersey, and a charter amendment in Piqua, Ohio. Ballotpedia listed 41 measures before the vote, reflecting a different count of which questions to include. The tracker says its posted results are not certified.
Examples show what the overall tally does—and does not—mean. Hubbard, Ohio, asked whether to ban data centers of any size within city limits; the unofficial result was 2,622 yes to 802 no, or 76.6% in favor of the ban. Boulder City, Nevada, voters rejected a question that would have allowed data centers on city-owned desert land, by 4,947 votes to 2,064. In Harwood, North Dakota, a measure to review rules for large projects was the tracker’s sole exception, with 325 votes against and 105 in favor.
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 Data Center Siting
The results point to local consent as a practical consideration for developers weighing where to build, but the tally should not be read as a single referendum on data centers or artificial intelligence. A ban, a temporary pause, a zoning reversal and a non-binding question have different effects. Some measures target proposed projects or future development rather than facilities already under construction.
The ballots also put specific local concerns into policy decisions. Source material describes questions framed around electricity demand, water use, project size and land use, while supporters of data center projects cite jobs and tax revenue. The reported Gallup polling summary says opponents name water and energy concerns, while supporters point to jobs and tax receipts. Those themes help explain the debate, but the vote totals alone do not establish why each individual voter chose a side.
For communities, the outcome may determine whether elected officials can approve projects without another public vote, or whether development faces a ban, cap, pause or additional approval requirement. For companies, the measures create a site-specific approval risk: a project’s prospects may depend on local rules and voters, not only on land and infrastructure availability.
Products Worth Considering
Canon SELPHY CP1500 Compact Photo Printer (White)
Logitech MX Master 4 for Mac Wireless Ergonomic Mouse, Space Black
Samsung 34-Inch Odyssey G5 Ultra-Wide Curved Gaming Monitor
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Different Ballots, Different Rules
The tracker counted measures whose ballot questions concerned data centers, including bans, megawatt caps, zoning referendums, developer agreements, rules requiring voter approval and advisory questions. The source material identifies 37 measures as binding and 10 as advisory. Their wording matters: a vote against allowing a particular use of city land is not necessarily a vote to prohibit every data center in a community.
Some questions proposed outright restrictions; others addressed size or duration. Measures described in the source included limits often set at 25 megawatts and temporary moratoriums. In Wilmington, Ohio, voters overturned four council decisions that had rezoned rural land for data centers, according to the source report. These examples illustrate why the tracker’s combined Restrict-versus-Allow count is useful as a broad snapshot but cannot substitute for reading each measure’s legal effect.
The source report says its author checked seven results against official election sites in Kansas, Nevada, Florida and North Dakota, and that all seven matched the tracker. Those checks included county election results for Emporia, Americus, El Dorado and Ottawa, Kansas; Edgewater, Florida; Boulder City; and Harwood. The author said the remaining results, including Ohio races, were not all independently verified and relied on the tracker’s linked sources and local reporting. All results remain unofficial in the material provided.
“Nothing on the page is certified.”
— Data Centers on the Ballot tracker
Certification and Measure Effects
The reported totals are unofficial and may change while six counts are still being completed, according to the tracker’s Nov. 5 status. Certification timelines and final results for each locality were not supplied. The source author independently checked seven races, not all 47, and said some election-office records were difficult to access.
It is also unclear from the aggregate tally how many measures will directly block projects, alter approvals or have no binding effect. That depends on each ballot’s wording, local law and any later implementation or legal proceedings. The source material does not provide a full breakdown of project status, voter motivations by locality or the eventual effect on construction plans.
Final Counts and Local Implementation
Election offices must complete their counts and certify results before the unofficial figures become final. Voters and project developers will then need to look at each locality’s certified result and the precise language of its measure, rather than relying on the combined 46-of-47 tally.
Where a binding restriction passed, the next step will depend on local procedures and the measure’s terms, including whether officials must amend zoning rules, pause approvals or apply a new public-vote requirement. Advisory questions may inform officials without changing rules on their own. The source material does not identify a shared implementation schedule across the affected communities.
Key Questions
What does “46 of 47” mean?
As of Nov. 5, the tracker showed the side favoring restrictions had won or was leading in 46 of 47 measures. The results were unofficial, and the measures differed in scope and legal effect.
Did voters in 46 places ban data centers?
No. The measures included outright bans, size limits, moratoriums, zoning decisions, approval rules and advisory questions. The combined tracker count groups those outcomes as Restrict or Allow; it does not mean 46 communities adopted a complete ban.
Why did reports cite 45, 41 and 47 measures?
The Redbud Consulting tracker initially listed 45 measures after election day and later added two. Ballotpedia counted 41 before the vote using different inclusion criteria. The source report says differences included how Maine, Kansas and New Jersey measures were counted.
Are the results final?
No. The tracker described its results as uncertified on Nov. 5, with six counts still underway. Local election offices must complete and certify their results.
What happens to proposed data center projects now?
That depends on the measure and locality. Some binding votes may change zoning or approval rules; advisory questions may not change the law by themselves. The source material does not establish the effect on every proposed or existing project.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
