TL;DR
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
As of November 5, unofficial results from a public tracker show the restrictive outcome leading in 46 of 47 local data center measures across 10 states. The measures ranged from outright bans to temporary pauses and advisory questions, so the count does not represent one uniform rejection of existing facilities.
Unofficial results from November 3 local elections show voters favoring restrictions on data centers in 46 of 47 tracked measures across 10 states, according to the Data Centers on the Ballot tracker. The tally points to broad local resistance to some proposed facilities, but the questions differed sharply, and none of the results was certified as of November 5.
The tracker, maintained by polling and data firm Redbud Consulting, groups measures by whether their outcome would restrict or allow data centers. At 12:30 p.m. Eastern on November 5, it listed 47 measures, with all showing results. Forty-one counts were complete for election night and six were still being counted. Across the measures, the tracker reported 260,177 votes, with 72.8% on the restrictive side. That is an aggregate across different ballot questions, not a single statewide or national vote.
Several results show the range of decisions involved. In Hubbard, Ohio, voters were asked whether to ban data centers of any size within city limits. The unofficial result was 2,622 yes to 802 no. In Boulder City, Nevada, Question 1 asked whether the city could make desert land available for data centers; voters rejected that proposal, 4,947 to 2,064. In Wilmington, Ohio, voters overturned four council decisions that had rezoned rural land for data center development.
The tracker classifies 37 measures as binding and 10 as advisory. The binding questions included bans, size limits, temporary moratoriums, rezoning referendums and rules requiring a public vote before a project can proceed. A separate ballot question may communicate voter sentiment without directly changing local law.
Why Local Data Center Votes Were About More Than Yes or No
Unofficial results point to broad local support for restrictions, but the ballot questions varied widely in scope and legal effect.
Different questions, different effects
A restrictive outcome did not mean every community voted on the same policy.
Prohibit facilities
Hubbard, Ohio, voters considered a ban on data centers of any size within city limits.
Decide where projects can go
Boulder City voters rejected making desert land available for data centers.
Change the project path
Some measures set size limits, pause development, change zoning, or require a public vote.
What local debates weigh
Communities and developers face competing priorities as projects move through local approval processes.
- Water use
- Energy demand
- Jobs
- Tax revenue
Why reported counts differ
The totals reflect different snapshots and definitions of which races or measures to include.
Local Votes Shape Project Approvals
The results matter to communities and developers because they show that local approval processes can affect where data center projects move forward. Some measures focused on future proposals, while others concerned land use or approval rules. A public vote requirement, for example, could add a new decision point to a project’s path.
Local debates often involve competing concerns about water, energy, jobs and tax revenue. The source material reports that Gallup polling found opponents naming water and energy, while supporters cited jobs and tax income. Several ballot texts set limits using measures such as megawatts or gallons of water per day, reflecting specific local questions rather than a single policy choice.
The tracker’s overall figure should be read as a measure of outcomes across varied proposals. It does not establish that voters in every community opposed every data center, or that existing facilities will close. The practical impact depends on the legal force and wording of each measure.
Products Worth Considering
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
Logitech MX Keys Combo for Business Keyboard and Mouse – Graphite
Apple MacBook Air 13.6-inch with M5 Chip, 16GB Memory, 512GB SSD, Sky Blue
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Measure Count Changed
The widely reported figure of 45 measures reflected an earlier snapshot of the same tracker. At 6:16 a.m. Eastern on November 4, it listed 45 measures, 40 with results. Later that day it added a non-binding question in Belvidere, New Jersey, and a charter amendment in Piqua, Ohio. The tracker’s public history records those additions.
Ballotpedia listed 41 measures before the election. Its count differed in part because it included fewer measures in Maine, Kansas and New Jersey. Another report described more than 40 races across 13 states, a broader count that included recalls and candidate races. These totals use different definitions, so they should not be treated as conflicting counts of an identical set.
The article’s author checked seven results against official election sites in Kansas, Nevada, Florida and North Dakota; those results matched the tracker. The author said many other county sites were difficult to verify because they blocked automated access or posted scanned documents. For unverified results, the article relies on the tracker and local reporting where available.
“Nothing on the page is certified.”
— Data Centers on the Ballot tracker
Certification and Local Effects
As of November 5, all results remained unofficial, and six counts were still in progress. The tracker did not provide certified totals, and the article’s author independently checked only seven measures. Final totals could change as counting and certification proceed.
The consequences also depend on the exact wording and legal status of each question. The available material does not detail implementation timelines or court challenges for every measure. It therefore remains unclear how quickly each binding result will affect local approvals, or how advisory votes will influence future decisions.
Final Counts and Local Implementation
Election officials are expected to complete remaining counts and certify results through their usual processes. Residents, local governments and developers will then be able to assess what each measure requires. In places where voters approved binding limits or approval rules, the next steps will depend on local law and the measure’s wording.
The tracker may update as results are finalized. Readers should treat its November 5 totals as a snapshot and check official county or state election records for certified results.
Key Questions
What does 46 of 47 mean?
It means the tracker classified the leading or winning outcome as restrictive in 46 of 47 local measures. The counts were unofficial as of November 5, and six were still being tallied.
Did all voters decide whether to ban data centers?
No. Ballot questions included outright bans, size limits, moratoriums, zoning decisions, public vote requirements and advisory questions. Their legal effects differ.
Were the results certified?
No. The tracker said its results were not certified as of November 5. Official election offices must complete their processes before final results are established.
Why did reports cite 41, 45 and 47 measures?
The figures came from different sources or snapshots. The tracker showed 45 on the morning after Election Day, then added two measures. Ballotpedia used a different count and included fewer local questions in some states.
Source: Thorsten Meyer AI
