TL;DR
Get business pricing on tech for your team
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
A public tracker counted 47 local data center measures on the Nov. 3, 2026, ballot in 10 states. As of Nov. 5, unofficial results showed the restrictive outcome winning or leading in 46; the measures ranged from bans to advisory questions, and six counts were still underway.
Voters in 46 of 47 local measures about data centers voted for, or were still leaning toward, a restrictive outcome on Nov. 3, according to the public tracker Data Centers on the Ballot. The results span 10 states, but all remain unofficial, and the measures varied widely, from outright bans to temporary pauses and advisory questions.
The tracker, maintained by polling and data firm Redbud Consulting, listed 47 measures as of 12:30 p.m. Eastern on Nov. 5. It grouped differently worded questions into two outcome categories: “Restrict” and “Allow.” The restrictive side led in 46 places; Harwood, North Dakota, was the exception. The tracker reported 41 counts complete for election night and six still being counted. Across all measures, it tallied 260,177 votes, with 72.8% on the restrictive side.
The widely reported figure of 45 measures reflected an earlier snapshot. At 6:16 a.m. Eastern on Nov. 4, the tracker showed 45 measures, 40 with results. It added a non-binding question in Belvidere, New Jersey, and a charter amendment in Piqua, Ohio, later that day. Ballotpedia had listed 41 measures before the election, using a different count: it included four Maine measures rather than the tracker’s eight, three Kansas measures rather than four, and one New Jersey measure rather than two.
Seven results were checked against official election sites in Kansas, Nevada, Florida and North Dakota, and matched the tracker’s figures. Examples include Hubbard, Ohio, where an unofficial count showed 2,622 votes for a citywide ban and 802 against, and Boulder City, Nevada, where voters rejected a proposal to allow data centers on city-owned desert land by 4,947 to 2,064. The source article says its author could not independently verify all 47 results; for the others, it relied on the tracker and local reporting.
Data center votes show a local trend
Unofficial results show restrictive outcomes winning or leading across nearly all tracked local measures. The measures vary, so the tally does not mean a wave of enacted bans.
What voters decided
Ballot questions differed widely, though the tracker grouped outcomes as “Restrict” or “Allow.”
Size and duration
Some proposals set megawatt thresholds or temporary pauses on data center development.
Zoning and approvals
Other measures addressed rezoning decisions, local approval rules, or specific land deals.
Non-binding questions
Some results signal voter views without changing local law on their own.
Why the tally needs context
The measures do not all have the same legal effect.
- Restrictive outcomes led in 46 places in the tracker’s Nov. 5 snapshot.
- Local consent may shape where companies can build and how projects are planned.
- It is not 46 enacted bans.
- Results were unofficial, and the tracker combined binding and advisory questions.
Counts and implementation remain open
Election officials still need to complete and certify results; local rules will determine what binding measures change in practice.
Six tallies were still underway in the Nov. 5 snapshot.
The reported results had not yet been certified.
Communities and developers will need to determine how each measure affects proposals and future sites.
Local Votes Shape Data Center Siting
The results point to local consent becoming a practical site risk for data center developers. In some communities, future projects could face a ban, size limit, pause or public approval requirement. The outcome may affect where companies can build and how they plan around local zoning and election calendars.
The vote totals do not represent one uniform policy choice. Some measures are binding, while others are advisory; some apply to future proposals, and some reverse specific land-use decisions. The source counts 37 binding measures and 10 advisory questions. That distinction matters when judging what a result changes in law or practice.
Products Worth Considering
Apple MacBook Air 13-inch Laptop with M5 Chip, 16GB Memory, 512GB SSD, Liquid Retina Display, and Touch ID – Midnight
Sonos Era 100 SL Compact Microphone-Free Speaker, Black
DJI Mini 5 Pro Fly More Combo with DJI RC 2
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What Voters Were Asked
The tracker defines a measure by whether the ballot question concerns data centers. Its list includes bans and megawatt caps, zoning referendums, developer agreements, voter-approval rules and advisory questions. It maps each result to “Restrict” or “Allow,” making it possible to aggregate measures that asked voters different things.
Among the examples verified at official sites, Emporia, Kansas, voted on a ban for data centers above 10 megawatts; Ottawa, Kansas, considered a 25-megawatt threshold; and El Dorado, Kansas, voted on a ten-year ban. In Wilmington, Ohio, voters overturned four council decisions that had rezoned rural land for data centers, according to the source article. Those varied proposals help explain why a broad tally describes a trend in voter choices, not a single statewide or national policy.
The source article describes water and energy as common concerns among opponents, while supporters point to jobs and tax revenue, citing Gallup polling. The ballot language itself often focused on measurable limits such as megawatts and gallons per day. The available material does not provide the polling figures or details needed to quantify how widely each concern was held.
““Restrict””
— Data Centers on the Ballot, the Redbud Consulting tracker
Counts and Legal Effects Remain Open
None of the results was certified as of Nov. 5, and six counts were still underway. The 46-of-47 figure therefore describes unofficial results at a specific time, not final certified outcomes. The tracker’s classification also combines binding and advisory questions, so it should not be read as 46 enacted bans.
The source article independently checked seven results and relied on the tracker and local reporting for the rest. It notes that some county election sites were difficult to access or posted scanned documents. The final totals, the legal effect of individual measures and how local governments will implement them remain unsettled in the supplied material.
Certification and Local Implementation
Election officials still need to complete and certify the outstanding counts. After certification, the effect of each binding measure will depend on its wording and the relevant local rules; advisory questions may guide officials without changing law on their own. Communities and project developers will then have to determine how the results apply to proposals already in review and to future sites.
Key Questions
Did voters reject data centers in 46 places?
The tracker says the restrictive side won or led in 46 of 47 measures as of Nov. 5. The measures differed, and some were advisory or temporary rather than outright bans.
Why did reports cite 45 measures?
That figure came from the tracker’s Nov. 4 morning count. It later added measures in Belvidere, New Jersey, and Piqua, Ohio, bringing its total to 47.
Are all 46 results final?
No. The tracker described all results as unofficial on Nov. 5, with six counts still underway. Certification had not occurred.
What was the one measure where the restrictive side did not lead?
Harwood, North Dakota, was the exception in the tracker’s tally. Its unofficial result showed 105 votes for reviewing rules for large projects and 325 against.
Do the results amount to 46 data center bans?
No. The list includes bans, size limits, moratoriums, zoning referendums, approval requirements and non-binding questions. The source counts 37 as binding and 10 as advisory.
Source: Thorsten Meyer AI
