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 across 10 states on Nov. 3, with the side favoring restrictions winning or leading in 46, according to unofficial results as of Nov. 5. The measures ranged from outright bans to advisory questions, so the tally does not mean voters made one uniform decision or rejected every data center project.
Voters in 10 states considered local data center measures on Nov. 3, and unofficial results show the side favoring restrictions winning or leading in 46 of 47, according to the Data Centers on the Ballot tracker. The measures addressed different policies, including outright bans, zoning changes and advisory questions, so the tally does not represent a single statewide or national decision to prohibit data centers.
As of 12:30 p.m. Eastern on Nov. 5, the tracker listed results for all 47 measures. It said 41 counts were complete for election night and six were still counting; none of the results had been certified. Across the measures, the tracker counted 260,177 votes, with 72.8% mapped to the side seeking restrictions. That combined figure pools local contests with different wording and effects.
The tracker’s tally grew after election night. At 6:16 a.m. Eastern on Nov. 4, it listed 45 measures, 40 with results: restrictions were ahead in 39, allowing data centers was ahead in one, and five had no results posted. The tracker later added a nonbinding question in Belvidere, New Jersey, and a charter amendment in Piqua, Ohio. Ballotpedia listed 41 measures before the vote, using a different count that included fewer measures in Maine, Kansas and New Jersey.
Seven results checked against official election sources matched the tracker, according to the source article. They included a Boulder City, Nevada, vote rejecting a proposal to allow data centers on city-owned desert land, 4,947 to 2,064, and a Harwood, North Dakota, vote on review rules for large projects, where the tracker’s restriction side lost, 105 to 325. The source article said it relied on the tracker and local reporting for the other results it did not independently verify.
What voters actually decided
Unofficial results show restriction measures winning or leading in nearly every tracked contest. The measures carried different local effects, from bans to advisory questions.
Different ballots, different effects
The tracker groups varied local policies under “Restrict” and “Allow.”
Changes local rules
Of the 47 measures, 37 were binding and could change laws, zoning decisions, or other local rules.
Records voter sentiment
Ten measures were advisory questions and did not impose the same legal requirements.
More than outright bans
Ballots covered zoning, size caps, moratoriums, development agreements, and voter approval requirements.
What the tally can and cannot say
A combined result does not establish what any specific facility must do.
- Restriction measures won or led in 46 tracked contests.
- Local consent may shape where and how companies plan projects.
- That voters rejected every data center project.
- How a specific vote affects a project; wording and legal status matter.
Results remain unofficial
The tracker had results listed for all measures, but certification was pending.
Six counts were still underway as of the November 5 update.
Election officials must complete and certify outstanding totals.
Communities and companies must review each measure’s wording and legal status.
Local Votes Shape Data Center Plans
The results show that local consent has become a practical consideration for data center proposals. Depending on the measure, voters can block a category of projects, reverse a zoning decision, set limits, or require a public vote before development moves forward. Those rules may affect where companies can build and how they plan projects.
The consequences differ by place and by ballot language. The source article says many measures target future projects rather than campuses already under construction. In some communities, a new proposal may now face a voter approval requirement; in others, the vote may only express an advisory preference. The combined tally alone cannot establish what any particular project must do.
The debate also involves competing local priorities. The source article cites polling in which opponents name water and energy use, while supporters point to jobs and tax revenue. Ballot questions sometimes set limits in megawatts or gallons per day, reflecting concerns that communities are weighing the resource demands of large facilities against anticipated economic benefits.
Products Worth Considering
Apple MacBook Air 13-inch Laptop with M5 Chip, 16GB Memory, 512GB SSD, 12MP Center Stage Camera, Touch ID, Wi-Fi 7, Midnight
Jackery HomePower 3600 Plus Portable Power Station, 3584Wh, 3600W
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Earbuds (2nd Gen) – Wireless Noise‑Cancelling Earbuds with Mic, Immersive Audio, USB‑C Charging, Up to 6 Hours Batte
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Ballots Actually Covered
The tracker, built by polling and data firm Redbud Consulting, counts local ballot questions focused on data centers. Its scope includes bans, size caps, zoning referendums, development agreements, voter approval requirements and advisory questions. It groups outcomes under “Restrict” and “Allow,” allowing differently worded questions to be summarized together. The tracker itself says its results are not certified.
According to the source article, 37 measures were binding and 10 were advisory. A binding vote can change a law, zoning decision or other local rule; an advisory question records voter sentiment but does not itself impose the same legal requirement. The measures also varied in scope: some proposed bans, while others set thresholds, including limits often set at 25 megawatts, or temporary moratoriums.
That distinction explains why headlines citing “45 measures” and later totals of 47 can both reflect the tracker at different times. The Nov. 4 figure was an early snapshot; two additional measures were added afterward. Other outlets counted differently based on their definitions. A separate report cited “40+ races across 13 states,” which, the source article notes, included recalls and candidate races as well as data center ballot questions.
“Nothing on the page is certified.”
— Data Centers on the Ballot tracker
Certification and Local Effects Remain
The final certified totals were not available in the source material, and six counts were still underway as of the tracker’s Nov. 5 update. The source article says it independently checked seven results at official election sites; it did not independently verify all 47, citing access limits and scanned county records. For the remaining contests, it relied on the tracker’s linked sources and local reporting where available.
It is also not clear from the combined count how each result will affect a specific proposed or existing facility. That depends on the text of the local measure, whether it is binding, and any legal or implementation steps that follow. Advisory votes, zoning reversals, bans and approval rules carry different consequences, even when all are grouped on the restriction side.
Final Counts and Rule Changes
Election officials must complete and certify the outstanding counts. Communities will then need to apply each measure according to its wording and legal status. For binding votes, that may mean updating local rules or carrying out zoning decisions; advisory results may instead inform future council discussions.
For companies considering new sites, the next step is to review the specific rules in each jurisdiction. The Nov. 3 results point to more local votes and approval requirements as possible factors in project planning, but the tracker’s aggregate tally does not show which future proposals will be filed or how communities will decide them.
Key Questions
Did voters reject data centers in 46 places?
Not necessarily. The tracker says the restriction side won or led in 46 of 47 measures, but those measures covered different actions, from bans to advisory questions. The tally does not mean every community rejected every data center project.
Are the results final?
No. The tracker described results as unofficial as of Nov. 5, and six counts were still underway. Certification was pending.
What was the one measure where restrictions did not lead?
Harwood, North Dakota, was the exception in the tracker’s tally. Its unofficial result on review rules for large projects was 105 yes to 325 no, with the restriction side behind.
Why did reports give different numbers of measures?
Trackers and news reports used different definitions and were updated at different times. Data Centers on the Ballot listed 45 measures early on Nov. 4, then added two; Ballotpedia listed 41 before the vote and counted some states differently.
Source: Thorsten Meyer AI
