🔍 Read the full analysis: How Voters Responded To Data Center Proposals In 47 Local Elections 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
A tracker listed 47 local data-center measures on Nov. 3 ballots across 10 states. As of Nov. 5, unofficial results showed the restrictive side winning or leading in 46; the measures varied widely, and six contests were still counting.
Unofficial results from 47 local data-center ballot measures across 10 states showed the side favoring restrictions winning or leading in 46 contests as of November 5, according to the Data Centers on the Ballot tracker. The votes covered proposals from outright bans to temporary pauses and rezoning decisions, so the tally does not mean voters made one uniform choice about data centers.
The tracker, built by polling and data firm Redbud Consulting, reported that 41 counts were complete and six were still being tallied. Across all 47 measures, it recorded 260,177 votes, with 72.8% cast for the tracker’s “Restrict” outcome. Those totals and leads remain unofficial; the tracker says its results are not certified.
The count expanded after election night. At 6:16 a.m. Eastern on November 4, the tracker listed 45 measures, 40 of them 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 different inclusion criteria and counts in Maine, Kansas and New Jersey.
A source check of seven contests found the tracker’s figures matched the unofficial results on the relevant county or state election sites. Those checks included votes in Kansas, Florida, Nevada and North Dakota. For other contests, the report relies on the tracker’s linked sources and local reporting. In Hubbard, Ohio, the Tribune Chronicle reported that a ban passed by 76% to 24%; the tracker’s unofficial count was 2,622 yes votes to 802 no votes.
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 indicate that local approval has become a practical site risk for data-center developers. A company planning a project may face a ban, a size limit, a pause or a public vote requirement, depending on the town and the wording adopted. The outcome can affect whether a site can be developed under existing plans, rather than simply expressing general support or opposition to the technology.
The stakes extend beyond individual projects because data centers require substantial electricity and water. The source report says opponents commonly cite those demands, while supporters point to jobs and tax revenue. Ballot language itself sometimes addressed operating scale, including megawatt limits and water use. The election results show those local trade-offs reaching voters, but they do not establish that every measure was driven by the same concerns.
For residents, the consequences depend on the measure’s legal effect. Some votes directly change local rules, while advisory questions record public sentiment without independently changing policy. A broad headline about voters rejecting data centers can obscure that distinction and overstate what any one result does.
Products Worth Considering
LG UltraGear 34GX90SA-W 34-inch WQHD Curved OLED Gaming Monitor
LG UltraGear 32GS60QC-B 32-inch Curved QHD Gaming Monitor (180Hz, 1ms, 1000R, AMD FreeSync, HDR10)
Amazon Kindle Scribe (64GB) with Premium Pen, Metallic Jade
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
One Tracker, Many Ballot Questions
The tracker groups measures by their intended effect: “Restrict” for outcomes that limit data centers and “Allow” for outcomes that permit or support them. That approach makes it possible to summarize differently worded questions, but the underlying measures are not interchangeable. The source report counts 37 binding measures and 10 advisory questions.
Among the examples, Hubbard voters considered a ban on data centers of any size. Boulder City, Nevada, voters rejected a proposal to allow data centers on city-owned desert land, according to the unofficial count cited in the report. Other ballots involved rezoning referendums, size caps, temporary moratoriums or rules requiring voters to approve certain projects. In Wilmington, Ohio, voters reversed four council decisions that had rezoned rural land for data centers, according to the report.
Counts published after the election differed because outlets and trackers used different definitions. Ballotpedia listed 41 data-center measures, while a report by 404 Media referred to “40+ races across 13 states,” a broader count that included recalls and candidate races. The 47-measure tracker count is specifically based on local ballot questions it classified as concerning data centers.
““Nothing on the page is certified.””
— Data Centers on the Ballot tracker
Certification and Legal Effects Remain
None of the results was certified in the source report, and six of the 47 counts were still ongoing as of November 5. The tracker’s overall percentage and its 46-of-47 tally could change as election offices complete their counts and certify results.
The report says its author independently checked seven results, not all 47. For the remaining contests, it relies on the tracker’s linked election sources and local reporting. The legal effect also varies by ballot question: the source identifies 37 measures as binding and 10 as advisory, but a shared “Restrict” label alone does not explain the exact rules each community adopted.
It is not yet clear from the source material how each approved restriction will be implemented, whether any will face legal challenges, or how many proposed projects will be affected. Many measures target future development, and the report does not provide a comprehensive project-by-project assessment.
Final Counts and Local Implementation
The immediate next step is for local election offices to finish counting and certify the results. Until then, the 46-of-47 figure and the vote totals should be treated as unofficial and subject to updates. The tracker links to local sources for individual contests, while the report says some official results were difficult to verify because election sites blocked automated access or posted scanned documents.
After certification, communities will need to apply the adopted rules to permits, zoning and proposed agreements, where relevant. Developers and residents will be able to see more clearly which projects are barred, paused, capped or subject to another public vote. The source report does not give a timetable for those local actions, and the next project-level effects remain unknown.
Key Questions
What does “46 of 47” mean?
It means the tracker classified the restrictive outcome as having won or leading in 46 of 47 local measures as of November 5. The results were unofficial, and six counts were still underway.
Did voters approve 46 outright bans?
No. The measures included bans, size limits, temporary pauses, rezoning questions, voter-approval rules and advisory questions. The tracker’s combined tally groups outcomes by whether they restrict or allow data centers.
Were the results certified?
No. The source report described the results as unofficial and said none had been certified at the time of publication. Six contests were still being counted.
Where did the earlier count of 45 come from?
The Data Centers on the Ballot tracker showed 45 measures on the morning after the election. It later added a non-binding question in Belvidere, New Jersey, and a charter amendment in Piqua, Ohio, bringing its total to 47.
What happens to projects in towns that backed restrictions?
The effect depends on each measure’s wording and legal status. Some votes directly change local rules, while advisory questions do not independently change policy. The source report does not specify the impact on every project.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
