🔍 Read the full analysis: What Was Really Decided In Local Votes On Data Centers? 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 public tracker counted 47 local data center measures in 10 states on Nov. 3, with the restrictive outcome leading or winning in 46, based on unofficial results as of Nov. 5. The measures did not all impose bans: they included temporary pauses, zoning decisions, size limits and advisory questions, and six results were still being counted.
Voters in 46 of 47 local data center measures on Nov. 3 either approved restrictions or were leaning that way, according to the public tracker Data Centers on the Ballot, which reported results as of Nov. 5. The measures covered 10 states, but they did not all ask voters to ban data centers: some addressed zoning, project size, temporary pauses or whether future decisions should go to a public vote.
The tracker, built by polling and data firm Redbud Consulting, listed 47 measures and mapped their outcomes to “Restrict” or “Allow.” It said 41 counts were complete and six remained in progress; all results were unofficial and none had been certified. Across the measures, the tracker counted 260,177 votes, with 72.8% on the restrictive side. That pooled figure combines different ballot questions and should not be read as a single statewide or national 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, using a different count: its state totals included fewer measures in Maine, Kansas and New Jersey. Another report’s “40-plus races across 13 states” included recalls and candidate races as well as data center questions, according to the source material.
Examples show how varied the decisions were. In Hubbard, Ohio, an unofficial count was 2,622 votes for a ban and 802 against, or 76.6% in favor. Wilmington voters overturned four council decisions that had rezoned rural land for data centers. In Boulder City, Nevada, voters rejected a proposal to make city-owned desert land available for data centers: the unofficial count was 2,064 yes to 4,947 no. These outcomes address different policies, not one uniform ban.
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 Rules Shape Data Center Plans
The results show that data center development is facing local political tests in places where residents may be weighing proposed facilities against concerns about utility demand, water use and land use. The source material cites Gallup polling in which opponents named water and energy, while supporters pointed to jobs and tax revenue. Those are reported reasons people give, not a measure of what drove each local vote.
For developers, the immediate practical effect depends on the wording and legal status of each measure. A binding ban or rezoning reversal can constrain future proposals; an advisory question may signal public sentiment without changing the law on its own. Some votes also create a process in which voters must approve a future project. The tally therefore indicates broad resistance to the outcomes grouped as restrictive, but does not establish that every community rejected every kind of data center development.
Products Worth Considering
EcoFlow DELTA 3 Portable Power Station (1024Wh, 1800W)
Logitech MX Keys Combo for Business Keyboard and Mouse – Graphite
LG UltraGear 32GX850A-B 32-inch 4K UHD Glossy OLED Gaming Monitor
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Why the Counts Differ
The widely reported figure of 45 measures described the tracker’s count on the morning after the election, not its later total. Redbud Consulting’s tracker defines inclusion broadly, covering bans, megawatt caps, zoning referendums, developer agreements, voter-approval rules and advisory questions when the ballot item is about data centers. Its method translates differently worded votes into “Restrict” and “Allow” categories so results can be summarized together.
Ballotpedia’s lower total reflects a different inventory, rather than necessarily a disagreement about the vote totals. The source material says it listed four Maine measures, three in Kansas and one in New Jersey, while the tracker counted eight, four and two respectively. The tracker had the same numbers for most other states. The distinction matters: a headline count depends on which ballot questions qualify, while the meaning and legal effect of each question depend on its text.
The source author said they checked seven results against official election sites in Kansas, Nevada, Florida and North Dakota and found that they matched the tracker. The examples included measures in Emporia, Americus, El Dorado and Ottawa, Kansas, and Edgewater, Florida. For the other results, the author relied on the tracker’s links to county sources and local reporting where available. The Tribune Chronicle, for example, reported Hubbard’s ban passing by about 76% to 24%.
“Nothing on the page is certified.”
— Data Centers on the Ballot, the Redbud Consulting tracker
Certification and Legal Effects
Final certified results were not available in the source material. Six of the tracker’s 47 counts were still underway as of Nov. 5, and the reported totals could change. The source author directly checked seven results against official election sites; the remaining results were not all independently verified in that account, though the tracker links to county sources.
The full legal effect of every measure also cannot be inferred from the overall tally. The source describes 37 measures as binding and 10 as advisory, but it does not provide the full text and legal analysis for every ballot item. Specific exemptions, implementation dates, effects on existing projects and any legal challenges remain unclear from the information provided. The 46-of-47 figure is a tracker classification of outcomes, not proof that 46 communities enacted identical prohibitions.
Final Counts and Local Implementation
Election officials must complete and certify the remaining results. After certification, cities and counties will need to apply each measure according to its wording and legal status, including whether it changes zoning, bars projects, pauses approvals or only advises local officials. Communities may also need to clarify how new rules apply to proposals already in review.
For businesses and residents, the next meaningful developments are likely to be local implementation decisions and any disputes over how ballot language is applied. The current tracker gives a broad snapshot of voter outcomes; it does not by itself settle what projects can proceed or whether future proposals will require another public vote.
Key Questions
Did voters ban data centers in 46 places?
No. The tracker grouped outcomes as restrictive or permissive, but the measures ranged from bans and size caps to moratoriums, zoning votes, voter-approval rules and advisory questions. Not every restrictive result created a ban.
Were the Nov. 3 results final?
No. The tracker described all results as unofficial as of Nov. 5, 2026. It reported 41 completed counts and six still being counted; certification had not occurred.
Why did reports give different totals for the number of measures?
They used different counting rules. The tracker listed 47 measures after adding two items later on Nov. 4, while Ballotpedia listed 41 before the vote and counted fewer measures in Maine, Kansas and New Jersey.
What was the one exception to the restrictive trend?
According to the tracker, Harwood, North Dakota, was the only measure where the outcome favored the “Allow” side. Its unofficial result was 105 yes to 325 no on a question about review rules for large projects.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
