🔍 Read the full analysis: What Was At Stake In 47 Local Votes On Data Centers? 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 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 ranged from binding bans and zoning decisions to advisory questions, and six counts were still ongoing.
Unofficial results from 47 local measures about data centers on Nov. 3 ballots across 10 states show the restrictive side winning or leading in 46 contests, according to the public tracker Data Centers on the Ballot. The measures addressed a range of proposals—including bans, zoning changes, temporary pauses and advisory questions—so the tally does not mean voters made the same decision in every community; six counts were still underway as of Nov. 5.
The tracker, built by polling and data firm Redbud Consulting, reported that 41 results were complete and six were still being counted as of 12:30 p.m. Eastern on Nov. 5. Across the 47 measures, it recorded 260,177 votes, with 72.8% cast for the outcome it classifies as “Restrict.” The tracker says its results are not certified.
The count grew after election day. At 6:16 a.m. Eastern on Nov. 4, the tracker listed 45 measures, 40 with results. It later added a nonbinding question in Belvidere, New Jersey, and a charter amendment in Piqua, Ohio. Ballotpedia listed 41 measures before the vote, in part because it counted some states’ local questions differently. Another published figure, “40+ races across 13 states,” included recalls and candidate races as well as data center questions, according to the source report.
The source report independently checked seven results against official election sites in Kansas, Nevada, Florida and North Dakota; those results matched the tracker. Examples include Hubbard, Ohio, where the unofficial count was 2,622 for a ban and 802 against, and Boulder City, Nevada, where voters rejected a question allowing data centers on city-owned desert land by 4,947 to 2,064. The report said it relied on the tracker and local reporting for other results, including Ohio races it could not independently verify.
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 approval becoming a practical site risk for data center developers, particularly where ballot measures can block a project or require another public vote. A ban, a rejected land-use change and a nonbinding question have different legal effects, but each can affect whether a proposed site has political and regulatory support.
The stakes reach beyond technology companies. Data centers require land and substantial electricity, and some ballot texts also address water use. The source report cites Gallup polling in which opponents named water and energy concerns, while supporters cited jobs and tax revenue. Those are reported arguments, not findings established by the vote tally itself.
Some measures focus on future proposals rather than facilities already under construction. Where voters approve a rule requiring public consent, developers may need to persuade residents before moving forward. The election results do not establish what any particular company will do next, but they show that local rules and voter decisions can shape project plans community by community.
Popular right now
Samsung 65-Inch The Frame Pro Neo QLED 4K TV (2026) Bundle with Modern Brown Bezel, HDMI Cables, and Home Theater Guide
Dreame L40 Ultra Gen 2 Robot Vacuum and Mop with 25,000 Pa Suction
KitchenAid 5.5-Qt Bowl-Lift Stand Mixer, Porcelain White (KSM55SXXX)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
One Tally, Different Ballot Questions
The tracker groups ballot outcomes into “Restrict” and “Allow” categories so that differently worded questions can be counted together. That makes a high-level tally possible, but it also compresses important differences. The source report says 37 measures were binding and 10 were advisory. The questions included outright bans, size limits—often around 25 megawatts—temporary moratoriums, zoning referendums and requirements for a public vote before approval.
Hubbard, a small city near Youngstown, asked whether data centers of any size should be banned within city limits. Wilmington, Ohio, voters considered undoing four council decisions that had rezoned rural land for data centers. Boulder City voters decided whether city-owned desert could be opened to data center development. These are distinct policy questions, even though the tracker places their restrictive outcomes in the same broad category.
Counting differences explain why early coverage cited 45 measures while later updates cited 47. The tracker’s methodology includes ballot questions directly about data centers, while other organizations used different inclusion rules. The figures are not necessarily contradictory: they reflect different lists, publication times and definitions of what counts as a measure.
“The tracker’s note says that nothing on its results page is certified.”
— Data Centers on the Ballot, a tracker built by Redbud Consulting
Certification and Legal Effects Remain
None of the results was certified in the tracker’s Nov. 5 update, and six contests were still counting. The source report checked seven races against official election sites but said it could not independently verify all 47, citing access limits and results posted in scanned documents. For the remaining measures, it relied on the tracker’s links to county sources and available local reporting.
The aggregate “Restrict” total also does not show the precise legal outcome of each measure. Advisory questions may express voter sentiment without directly changing policy; binding measures can impose rules, but their exact scope depends on the ballot language and local law. The source material does not provide a complete legal analysis of each result or establish which proposals affect existing construction.
Final Counts and Local Implementation
The immediate next step is for election officials to finish counting and certify results. Until then, the 46-of-47 figure remains an unofficial tracker tally, with six contests still in progress in the Nov. 5 update. Certified county and state results may confirm or alter individual totals.
After certification, communities will need to apply each measure according to its wording and legal status. Local officials may have to implement bans, caps, pauses or approval procedures; advisory results may instead inform future policy debates. Developers and residents will be watching for decisions about how each measure applies to proposed projects. The source material does not identify a single national next milestone or provide a timetable for those local actions.
Key Questions
What does the 46-of-47 result mean?
It means the tracker classified the restrictive outcome as having won or leading in 46 of 47 local measures as of Nov. 5. It does not mean 46 communities adopted identical bans or rules.
Were the results final?
No. The tracker described the results as unofficial. It reported 41 completed counts and six still underway in its Nov. 5 update.
What kinds of measures were on the ballots?
The questions included outright bans, size limits, temporary moratoriums, zoning referendums, public-vote requirements and advisory questions. Their legal effects differ.
Why did reports give different totals for the number of measures?
Organizations used different counting rules, and the tracker added two measures after its initial post-election count. The source report says Ballotpedia listed 41 before the vote, while the tracker later listed 47.
Which community was the exception?
Harwood, North Dakota, was the one exception in the tracker’s 47-measure tally. The question concerned review rules for large projects; the unofficial count listed 105 yes votes and 325 no votes.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
