🔍 Read the full analysis: Why 46 Communities Voted No On Data Centers on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on tech for your team
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A public tracker counted 47 local data-center measures across 10 states on Nov. 3 and reported the restrictive outcome winning or leading in 46 as of Nov. 5. The measures ranged from outright bans to temporary pauses and advisory questions, and the results were not certified.
Voters in 46 of 47 local data-center measures across 10 states chose or were leading toward restrictions in unofficial results from the Nov. 3 election, according to the public tracker Data Centers on the Ballot. The measures covered different policies, including bans, zoning decisions and temporary pauses, so the tally does not mean voters in 46 communities all rejected the same kind of project.
As of 12:30 p.m. Eastern on Nov. 5, the tracker listed results for all 47 measures. It said 41 counts were complete and six were still being counted; across the measures, it recorded 260,177 votes, with 72.8% on the side it labels “Restrict.” The tracker’s results remain unofficial, and none had been certified at the time of the report.
The sole measure where the restrictive side did not win or lead was in Harwood, North Dakota. Voters there considered review rules for large projects; the unofficial count was 105 yes to 325 no. Elsewhere, the questions differed substantially. Hubbard, Ohio, voted on a ban covering data centers of any size. Boulder City, Nevada, voters rejected a proposal to open city-owned desert land to data centers, while Wilmington, Ohio, voters overturned four council decisions rezoning rural land for the facilities.
The tally also depends on what counts as a data-center measure. The tracker added two measures after its initial election-night count, bringing its total from 45 to 47. Ballotpedia counted 41 measures before the vote, using a different scope. The tracker includes, among other things, binding rules and non-binding advisory questions, making its total a useful count of local votes but not a single standardized referendum.
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 Plans
The results point to local approval as a potential hurdle for companies seeking sites, even as demand for data-center capacity grows. Some ballot questions set direct limits; others change zoning or require voters to approve future projects. In places adopting such rules, developers may have to secure public support before moving ahead.
The votes also show why a single national tally needs qualification. The 46-to-1 figure combines measures with different legal effects, and several concern future proposals rather than facilities already under construction. It signals widespread electoral support for restrictions in the places counted, but does not establish that every community opposed every data center or that existing projects will close.
For residents, the decisions can affect land use and the terms under which large projects are considered. The source report describes a recurring debate between concerns about water and energy use and arguments about jobs and tax revenue. Those considerations appeared in the political discussion, but the results alone do not show which concern drove each voter or determine the effects of any particular project.
Products Worth Considering
Bose SoundLink Flex Bluetooth Speaker (2nd Gen) – Portable Outdoor Speaker with Hi‑Fi Audio, Waterproof and Dustproof, USB‑C, Up to 12 Hours
EcoFlow Delta 3 Max Portable Power Station – 2048 Wh LiFePO4 Battery, 2400 W Output (3400 W X‑Boost)
Samsung Galaxy Tab A11+ (6 GB RAM, 128 GB storage, expandable) – Gray
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the 47-Measure Count Developed
The number “45” circulated in coverage on Nov. 4 because that was the tracker’s count early the morning after Election Day. At 6:16 a.m. Eastern on Nov. 4, it listed 45 measures, with results posted for 40. Later that day it added a non-binding question in Belvidere, New Jersey, and a charter amendment in Piqua, Ohio. The updated total was 47.
The tracker, built by polling and data firm Redbud Consulting, groups differently worded outcomes into two categories: “Restrict” and “Allow.” Its list includes bans and megawatt caps, zoning referendums, developer agreements, voter-approval requirements and advisory questions. Ballotpedia’s lower count reflected different inclusion decisions, including fewer listed measures in Maine, Kansas and New Jersey.
The report says its author checked seven results against official county or state election sites in Kansas, Nevada, Florida and North Dakota; those results matched the tracker. For the remaining measures, including Ohio results, the report relied on the tracker’s linked sources and available local coverage. That distinction matters: the statewide tally is a tracker’s compilation, not a single official election return.
““Restrict””
— Data Centers on the Ballot tracker
Certification and Local Effects
Certification was still pending as of Nov. 5, and six of the 47 counts were still being tallied. The tracker’s 46-to-1 result could change if outstanding ballots alter a local outcome. The source report independently checked seven races, not all 47, and says it relied on the tracker and local reporting for the rest.
The combined tally also cannot establish a single motive behind the votes. Ballot questions ranged from binding bans to advisory prompts, and the report does not supply a community-by-community breakdown of voters’ reasons. The provided material gives some examples of specific policies but does not fully describe the final language or legal effect of every measure. It is also unclear from the results alone how local governments will apply new rules to particular proposals or what effects they will have on planned development.
Final Counts and Policy Implementation
Election officials must complete and certify outstanding results. Until then, the tracker’s figures should be treated as unofficial and subject to change. Residents and companies will also need to look at each measure separately: its wording, whether it is binding, and what steps it requires from local government or a developer.
The next practical test will come as communities apply approved restrictions, pauses or voter-approval rules to specific projects. The available source material does not identify a common implementation timetable or a single next milestone across the 47 measures. For now, the confirmed development is a broad set of local votes, with the precise legal and commercial consequences still dependent on each jurisdiction’s results and rules.
Key Questions
Did 46 communities ban data centers?
No. The tracker counted the restrictive side as winning or leading in 46 measures, but those measures included different types of restrictions, such as bans, zoning changes, caps, temporary pauses and advisory questions.
Are the Nov. 3 results final?
No. The results cited as of Nov. 5 were unofficial. The tracker said six counts were still underway and that none of the results had been certified.
Why did reports give different totals for the number of measures?
Organizations used different counting rules. The tracker listed 47 measures after adding two later, while Ballotpedia listed 41 before the vote and counted some states differently.
What was the one measure where restrictions did not lead?
In Harwood, North Dakota, the unofficial vote on review rules for large projects was 105 yes to 325 no. The tracker classified that result as the exception to the restrictive side’s overall lead.
Why did voters support restrictions?
The source report says opponents commonly raised water and energy use, while supporters pointed to jobs and tax revenue. The available results do not show what motivated voters in each community.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
