Data-center ballot tally includes 27 approved limits or opposition measures—not 40

Voters approved 27 local measures limiting data-center development or expressing opposition on November 3, 2026, and rejected 13 that would have favored it. Ballotpedia’s November 6 breakdown clarifies the election result: those were not 40 newly approved restrictions. Some votes changed development rules; others were advisory.

Overall, voters favored limits in 40 of 41 local ballot contests. The exception was Harwood, North Dakota, where voters defeated a proposed review requirement for certain developments, including data centers.

Bans were only part of the approved measures

The approved measures included five full bans: one each in California and Florida, plus three in Ohio. Another 12 imposed partial bans, ranging from prohibitions with narrow exceptions to bans applying only to large data centers.

• The partial bans comprised eight measures in Ohio, three in Kansas and one in Maine.
• Three additional measures, all in Maine, established six-month moratoriums on data-center development.
• Two Adams County, Ohio, measures established zoning regulations for unincorporated areas. Construction would require zoning consistent with data-center use.

27Limits or opposition approved

Approved measures included both development restrictions and expressions of opposition.

13Development-support measures defeated

Voters rejected proposals favoring data centers or expressing support for development.

Some communities required permission, not prohibition

Grove City, Ohio, Issue 28 requires voter approval for developments, including data-center projects, using more than 50 acres, 20 megawatts of electricity or 500,000 gallons of water a day. It also established enforceable community-impact standards.

Janesville, Wisconsin, required voter approval for development of the proposed GM/JATCO data-center site if its cost exceeds $450 million. Perry, Ohio, Issue 16 instead requires developers of very large data centers seeking certain tax incentives to provide financial guarantees to the community.

Two approved Illinois measures expressed opposition to data-center development but were nonbinding. Unlike bans or approval requirements, those votes did not themselves impose enforceable development controls.

Rejected proposals ranged from endorsements to rezoning

Seven defeated measures were nonbinding expressions of support: five in Illinois, one in New Jersey and one in Ohio. Their rejection withheld an advisory endorsement rather than creating a prohibition.

Four rejected Wilmington, Ohio, measures would have rezoned specific land from residential to industrial use, allowing data-center construction there. Boulder City, Nevada, voters rejected adding data centers as an approved use for a particular area.

In Ashville, Ohio, voters rejected a referendum that would have upheld Resolution 06-2026, a term summary guiding village negotiations with data-center company EdgeConneX. That vote concerned a negotiating framework, not a general data-center ban.