🔍 Read the full analysis: Voters Opposed Data Centers In 46 Of 47 Votes—but What Did They Decide? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get hardware and tech essentials 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 listed 47 local data-center measures across 10 states on Nov. 3 and, as of Nov. 5, showed the restrictive side winning or leading in 46. The results are unofficial, and the measures varied widely: some imposed bans or pauses, while others were advisory or concerned specific land-use decisions.
The Data Centers on the Ballot tracker, built by polling and data firm Redbud Consulting, listed measures in 10 states. At 12:30 p.m. Eastern on Nov. 5, it showed the restrictive outcome ahead in 46 contests and the permissive outcome ahead in one, Harwood, North Dakota. The tracker said 41 counts were complete for election night and six were still being counted. It labels results uncertified.
The tally changed after election day. At 6:16 a.m. Eastern on Nov. 4, the tracker listed 45 measures, with results posted for 40. 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 choices about which questions to include. Those counts are not directly interchangeable: the tracker includes a broader set of data-center-related ballot questions, while another account cited in the source material includes other election contests as well.
The tracker’s combined count was 260,177 votes, of which 72.8% were on the restrictive side. That is an aggregate across different measures, not a count of voters answering one common question. The source author independently checked seven results against official election sites in Kansas, Nevada, Florida and North Dakota and said all seven matched the tracker. For most other results, including those in Ohio, the report relies on the tracker and linked county sources, alongside local reporting.
In Hubbard, Ohio, an unofficial tally showed 2,622 votes for a ban on data centers of any size within city limits and 802 against, or 76.6% in favor. In Boulder City, Nevada, voters rejected a proposal to allow data centers on city-owned desert land, with 4,947 voting no and 2,064 voting yes, according to the unofficial Clark County result cited in the report. These examples illustrate why the tracker groups differently worded questions by whether their outcome would restrict or allow development.
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 Siting
The results signal a challenge for developers seeking local approval, but the count does not mean every community rejected the same kind of project. A binding ban can directly limit future development; a zoning referendum may address a particular parcel or earlier council action; and an advisory question expresses voters’ views without itself changing local law.
The source report describes a debate over energy and water use on one side and jobs and tax revenue on the other, citing polling that found those themes among opponents and supporters. Some ballot texts specified project size in megawatts or water use in gallons per day. For companies, the practical issue is that local approval, land-use rules and public votes may affect where projects can be built. The reported measures often concern future proposals, not data centers already under construction.
Products Worth Considering
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
LG UltraGear 34GX90SA-W 34-inch WQHD Curved OLED Gaming Monitor
Apple MacBook Air 15-inch with M5 chip, 24GB RAM, 512GB SSD, Midnight
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Ballot Questions Covered
The tracker counts questions whose text concerns data centers, including outright bans, size limits, temporary moratoriums, zoning referendums, development agreements, voter-approval requirements and advisory questions. Its labels, “Restrict” and “Allow,” standardize the direction of each result so the contests can be tallied together. That method helps summarize a crowded ballot, but it does not make the legal effect of each vote the same.
The source material says 37 measures were binding and 10 were advisory. Examples range from Hubbard’s proposed citywide prohibition to votes on whether specific land should be rezoned or made available. The report also notes that some proposals set limits such as 25 megawatts, while others established temporary pauses. Readers should check the text and local legal status of a particular measure before treating its result as a general ban.
On election morning, headlines cited 45 measures because that was the tracker’s count at the time. The tracker subsequently added two questions, bringing its total to 47 measures. Other published totals differed because outlets and databases used different inclusion rules. The source author says seven results were checked against official election websites; the remaining results were not all independently verified in the report.
“Nothing on the page is certified.”
— Data Centers on the Ballot, a tracker built by Redbud Consulting
Certification and Legal Effects Remain
The results were not certified as of Nov. 5, and six measures were still counting, according to the tracker. The figures may change as election officials finish tabulation and certification. The source report says it checked seven contests against official sites but could not independently verify all 47; for most others, it relied on tracker entries and linked sources.
It is also not clear from the aggregate tally alone what each result will change in practice. The source material identifies 10 advisory questions, which do not themselves enact a rule, and describes measures with differing scopes and legal mechanisms. The effect of individual results depends on the ballot language and local procedures. The 46-of-47 figure should not be read as 46 identical bans or as proof that all existing data-center projects are blocked.
Watch Certification and Local Implementation
Local election offices must complete counts and certify results; until then, the tracker’s figures remain unofficial. For measures that pass, the next step is to determine their legal effect: whether a ban or limit takes effect, whether a zoning decision is reversed, or whether officials must hold a further vote or take another action.
Developers, residents and local governments will be watching how those rules apply to proposed projects and whether additional public approvals are required. The source report does not provide a single implementation timetable for the measures. Further clarity depends on certification, the wording of each ballot question and any subsequent local decisions.
Key Questions
What does the 46-of-47 count mean?
It means the tracker showed the restrictive side winning or leading in 46 of 47 local measures as of Nov. 5. The measures asked different questions, so the figure does not mean voters cast ballots on one shared proposal.
Are the results final?
No. The tracker described its data as uncertified. It reported that six measures were still counting as of Nov. 5, 2026, so figures could change before official certification.
Did voters pass 46 data-center bans?
No. The measures included bans, size limits, pauses, zoning votes, voter-approval rules and advisory questions. The combined tracker count does not mean every restrictive result created a ban.
Which measure was the exception?
The tracker showed Harwood, North Dakota, as the only measure where the permissive side won or led. Its question concerned review rules for large projects; the cited unofficial result was 105 yes to 325 no.
What happens after a measure passes?
That depends on the ballot language and local law. Some results may directly restrict development, while others may guide officials or concern a particular zoning decision. Certification and local implementation will clarify the effect of each vote.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
