🔍 Read the full analysis: 47 Local Ballot Votes, 46 Rejections: Understanding Data Center Decisions on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get smart everyday buys 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 reported that data center restrictions won or were leading in 46 of 47 local measures on Nov. 3, based on unofficial results as of Nov. 5. The votes included bans, caps, pauses, zoning decisions and advisory questions, so they do not represent a single nationwide policy decision.
Data center restrictions won or were leading in 46 of 47 local ballot measures held Nov. 3, according to the Data Centers on the Ballot tracker, which showed unofficial results across 10 states as of Nov. 5. The measures ranged from outright bans to advisory questions, meaning the tally records a broad local push to limit or scrutinize projects, not a single uniform vote against every data center.
The tracker, built by polling and data firm Redbud Consulting, reported that 41 measures had complete election-night counts and six were still being counted. Across the 47 measures, it recorded 260,177 votes, with 72.8% on the side it labels “Restrict.” The tracker says its results are not certified.
The headline count changed after election day. At 6:16 a.m. Eastern on Nov. 4, the tracker listed 45 measures, with results posted for 40. It added a nonbinding question in Belvidere, New Jersey, and a charter amendment in Piqua, Ohio, later that day. Ballotpedia listed 41 measures before the vote, using a different scope and counting approach. Another report described “40+ races across 13 states,” including recalls and candidate races, which are not all data-center ballot measures.
Some local results illustrate the range. In Hubbard, Ohio, unofficial results showed 2,622 votes for a ban and 802 against, a 76.6% share for the ban. In Boulder City, Nevada, voters rejected a proposal to make city-owned desert land available for data centers, with 2,064 yes votes and 4,947 no votes, according to the tracker’s cited county results. In Harwood, North Dakota, the tracker’s lone exception, voters opposed a measure to review rules for large projects, with 105 yes votes and 325 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 Project Approval
The results matter because local rules can determine whether a proposed site is available, what size facility may be built, or whether residents must have a direct say. For developers, local approval has become a project risk: a site may face a ban, a temporary pause, a zoning reversal or a requirement for another public vote. The source material says many measures concern future projects rather than campuses already under construction, but does not establish the status of every affected site.
The votes also show how data center disputes are being framed in practical terms. Ballot language cited in the source material refers to electricity use, water consumption and facility capacity, while supporters’ arguments include jobs and tax revenue. The outcomes do not prove that voters in every community oppose data centers; they show that, across these particular measures, the restrictive or opposing side generally had more support in unofficial counts.
Products Worth Considering
LG PuriCare AeroHit Smart Air Purifier for Large Rooms up to 1000 sq ft, True HEPA Filter with 360° Airflow, PM1.0 Sensor & LED Air Quality
Dell Pro 14 Plus P1425 14-Inch Portable Monitor
Apple MacBook Air 13.6-inch with M5 Chip, 16GB Memory, 512GB SSD, Sky Blue
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
One Tally, Many Ballot Questions
The 46-of-47 figure combines different types of questions. The source says 37 measures are binding and 10 are advisory. Some propose outright bans; others set size limits, often expressed in megawatts, impose temporary moratoriums, reverse zoning decisions, or require a public vote before approval. An advisory vote can signal public sentiment without changing local law on its own.
Questions were also worded in opposite directions. A “yes” vote might support a ban in one town, while elsewhere it could approve using public land for a data center. The tracker maps outcomes onto “Restrict” and “Allow” categories to compare them. That makes a cross-city summary possible, but the combined count does not mean 46 communities passed identical restrictions.
The source author said seven results were checked against official election sites in Kansas, Nevada, Florida and North Dakota, and all seven matched the tracker. Those include votes in Emporia, Americus, El Dorado and Ottawa, Kansas, Edgewater, Florida, Boulder City and Harwood. The author said the remaining results, including those in Ohio, were not all independently verified and relied on the tracker’s links and local reporting. All results remained unofficial in the supplied account.
““Restrict””
— Data Centers on the Ballot tracker
Certification and Local Effects
The results were unofficial as of Nov. 5, and six measures were still counting, according to the tracker. The final certified totals could differ. The source author also said they independently checked seven results, not all 47; the rest were taken from the tracker and, where available, local reporting.
The 46-of-47 summary should not be read as a count of 46 permanent bans. The measures differ in legal force, scope and wording, and some are advisory. The supplied information does not detail the legal status or implementation schedule for every measure, how many projects will be affected, or whether any results will face challenges. It also does not establish a common economic or environmental effect across the communities.
Final Counts and Local Implementation
The next step is completion and certification of the outstanding election counts. After that, local officials will need to apply any binding measures according to their terms, while advisory results may inform later council decisions without changing rules by themselves. Communities with zoning reversals, caps or approval requirements may face further hearings or votes as specific projects come forward.
For a clearer picture of the tally’s policy effect, readers will need certified results and town-by-town information on what each measure changes. The overall tracker count is an early measure of local voting patterns; it does not by itself settle the future of data center development in any state or establish the effect on projects already proposed or underway.
Key Questions
What does “46 of 47” mean?
It means the tracker classified the restrictive or anti-data-center side as having won or leading in 46 of 47 local measures, based on unofficial results reported by Nov. 5. It does not mean 46 towns adopted the same ban.
Were all 47 measures outright bans?
No. The measures included bans, facility-size caps, temporary moratoriums, zoning referendums, public-vote requirements and advisory questions. The source says 37 were binding and 10 advisory.
Are the results final?
No. The tracker described the results as uncertified, and six measures were still counting as of Nov. 5. Final totals may change when election officials complete certification.
Why do published totals differ?
Trackers and election summaries use different definitions of what counts as a data-center ballot measure. Ballotpedia listed 41 measures, while the Redbud Consulting tracker later listed 47, including additional town measures in Maine, Kansas and New Jersey.
What happens to projects in towns that voted for restrictions?
That depends on each measure’s wording and legal status. Some may change local rules or require further approval; advisory questions may not change the law on their own. The supplied results do not establish the impact on every proposed or ongoing project.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
