TL;DR
Get everyday essentials delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
A public tracker lists 47 local data-center measures on November 3 ballots across 10 states. As of November 5, the side seeking restrictions won or led in 46; the results were unofficial, six counts remained ongoing, and the measures included both binding rules and advisory questions.
Voters in 46 of 47 local measures about data centers on November 3 ballots across 10 states chose, or were leaning toward, restrictions, according to the public tracker Data Centers on the Ballot. The results remained unofficial as of November 5, and six counts were still underway; the measures ranged from binding bans to nonbinding questions, so the tally does not mean every community enacted a prohibition.
Data Centers on the Ballot, a tracker built by polling and data firm Redbud Consulting, listed 47 measures in 10 states as of 12:30 p.m. Eastern on November 5. It classified outcomes as “Restrict” or “Allow” to combine differently worded questions. The tracker said 41 counts were complete and six were still being counted. Across the measures, it recorded 260,177 votes, with 72.8% on the Restrict side. That figure combines contests with different rules and stakes; it is not a single statewide or national referendum.
The tracker’s count grew after election day. At 6:16 a.m. Eastern on November 4, it listed 45 measures, 40 with results. It later added a nonbinding question in Belvidere, New Jersey, and a charter amendment in Piqua, Ohio. Ballotpedia had listed 41 measures before the vote, using a different count: it included four Maine town measures and three Kansas measures, while the tracker lists eight in Maine and four in Kansas. The difference reflects which local questions each count includes.
The source article checked seven results against official election sites in Kansas, Florida, Nevada and North Dakota and reported that they matched the tracker. For example, Hubbard, Ohio, recorded 2,622 votes for a citywide ban and 802 against, an unofficial 76.6% in favor. Boulder City, Nevada, voters rejected Question 1, which would have allowed data centers on city-owned desert land, by 4,947 to 2,064. The source author said the other results were not all independently checked; for those, the article relied on the tracker’s links to county sources and available local reporting.
Voters Backed Restrictions
Across 46 of 47 Measures
A November 5 tracker update showed the side seeking data-center restrictions winning or leading in most local ballot measures. The results were unofficial, and local rules varied.
What voters decided
The tracker grouped differently worded local questions under “Restrict” or “Allow.”
Local rules could change
Measures included bans, size caps, pauses, rezoning votes and public-approval requirements.
Some votes record sentiment
An advisory result may express voters’ views without changing local rules by itself.
The count is still provisional
The tracker’s November 5 update reported unofficial outcomes.
How to read the result
A “Restrict” outcome does not always mean a community enacted a ban.
- Local voters favored or were leaning toward restrictions in 46 measures.
- Communities weighed proposals with different rules and stakes.
- That 46 communities passed data-center bans.
- The final legal effect or implementation timeline of every measure.
Local Votes Shape Data Center Plans
The results indicate that local approval has become a practical hurdle for some data-center proposals. Depending on the measure, a community may ban new facilities, cap their size, pause approvals, reverse a rezoning decision, or require voters to approve a project first. For developers and businesses, those rules can affect where and how a site can be built. The measures vary, so the 46-of-47 result should not be read as a uniform legal ban across those places.
The source article points to water use, energy demand, jobs and tax revenue as recurring points in the debate, citing Gallup polling for those concerns and benefits. Some ballot questions specified facility size in megawatts or water use in gallons per day. The election results show how voters responded to the proposals in their own communities; they do not establish the overall economic or environmental effects of data centers.
Popular right now
Ninja Mega Kitchen System Blender and Food Processor, 1500W, 72-oz Pitcher, 8-Cup Bowl, Black (BL770)
iRobot Roomba 105 Combo Robot Vacuum and Mop
LG 55-Inch OLED evo G2 Series 4K Smart TV (OLED55G2PUA, 2022)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Ballot Measures Covered
The tracker grouped together 37 binding measures and 10 advisory questions. The binding measures included outright bans, size caps—often at 25 megawatts—temporary moratoriums, rezoning referendums and requirements for a public vote before approval. Advisory questions can record public sentiment without changing local rules by themselves.
That range matters when interpreting the headline figure. A “Restrict” result could mean rejecting one proposed land-use change or asking officials to pause approvals, rather than stopping every data center. The tracker’s overall label makes differently worded races countable, but readers need the text and legal effect of each local measure to know what changed.
The tracker’s election-morning snapshot helps explain why early reports cited 45 measures: that was its count on November 4, before two additional questions were added. Other outlets used different scopes. The source article says 404 Media counted more than 40 races across 13 states, including recalls and candidate races alongside ballot questions.
Certification and Local Effects
None of the results was certified in the tracker’s November 5 update, and six counts were still ongoing. The reported 46-to-1 split could change as election officials complete their counts and certify results. The source article’s own official-site checks covered seven measures, not all 47; it relied on the tracker and linked sources for the remainder.
The available source material does not establish the final legal effect or implementation timeline of every measure. It also does not provide the full ballot text and vote count for all 47 races. In particular, an advisory result may not change local law, and a vote on a specific site or zoning decision may not apply to other proposed facilities in the same area.
Final Counts and Rule Changes
County and state election officials will finish counting ballots and certify results. Communities with binding measures will then need to apply the adopted restrictions, pauses or approval rules through their local processes. In places where voters rejected a rezoning or backed an advisory question, the next steps depend on the measure’s wording and the authority of local officials.
For a clearer picture of how many projects face new limits, the key milestones are certified results and local implementation decisions. The November 5 tally provides an early snapshot of voter sentiment, but it is not a final count of enacted bans or affected data-center capacity.
Key Questions
What does “46 of 47” mean?
It means the tracker classified the winning side, or the side leading in an unfinished count, as “Restrict” in 46 measures. The results were unofficial as of November 5, 2026.
Did voters pass 46 data-center bans?
No. The measures included bans, size caps, moratoriums, rezoning votes, public-approval requirements and advisory questions. Their legal effects differ, and an advisory vote may not change local rules.
Where did the 47-measure count come from?
The count came from Data Centers on the Ballot, a tracker by Redbud Consulting. It listed 47 local measures across 10 states by November 5, after adding two questions to its earlier election-morning count of 45.
Were the election results final?
No. The tracker described the results as unofficial. It said 41 counts were complete and six were still being counted as of its November 5 update.
What happens after the votes are certified?
Local officials will apply any binding rules according to each measure’s wording and local procedures. The source material does not specify implementation timelines for all communities.
Source: Thorsten Meyer AI
