In the November 3 local elections, 44 US jurisdictions rejected the construction of data centers and only one backed it. In Ohio, all 18 communities that voted approved restrictions, with margins of up to 87%.
American voters resoundingly rejected the construction of data centers in the local elections on Tuesday, November 3. According to the tracking website Data Centers on the Ballot, 47 initiatives to restrict these projects were put to voters across the country: 44 jurisdictions approved them, only one came out in favor of the developments and two contests were still being counted. On election night, Stateline had reported that 33 measures had already passed or were leading the count and that about a dozen more had not yet announced results.
The measures included outright bans, temporary moratoriums, limits on energy consumption, the requirement of voter approval before construction and advisory resolutions urging officials to restrict the projects. The only result favorable to proponents was recorded in North Dakota.
Ohio concentrated much of the phenomenon. While Stateline identified 21 municipalities that turned to ballot measures, the Ohio Capital Journal reported that 18 communities voted on limiting or banning data center development and in all of them the restrictions were approved, in most cases by resounding margins. In Wilmington, the seat of Clinton County, about 80% of voters rejected the rezoning of four parcels to allow this type of project.
In Perry, in Lake County, more than 87% backed an initiative requiring data centers that receive tax incentives to take out a bond, functioning as a kind of insurance policy, to back up their promises of local tax revenue. In Piqua, voters banned data centers within city limits by a 2-to-1 margin and also removed three commissioners — including the mayor and vice mayor — for having approved a Meta data center in November of the previous year.
From Conneaut in the northeast to Trenton in the southwest, nine communities approved initiatives modeled on the statewide moratorium that the group Conserve Ohio is promoting to put to a vote in 2027. That proposal would amend the state constitution to prohibit any data center that consumes more than 25 megawatts a month. The organization also asked legislators for a 12-month moratorium during the lame-duck session. In a statement, it congratulated the communities that voted against the projects and warned elected officials: "You cannot look away now." "The election results above demonstrate that when communities have a say regarding the construction of a hyperscale data center in their local area, they overwhelmingly say no," it added.
Angela Huffman, a sixth-generation farmer from northwest Ohio and director of the national watchdog group Farm Action, explained that data centers came onto her radar a year ago because of their impact on farmland. "And then, lo and behold, I read in the newspaper back in June of this year that a data center, a nearly $1 billion data center, was proposed right here on the outskirts of Upper Sandusky, about 10 miles from my farm," she recounted.
In June, the company Smartland Energy proposed building a 150-megawatt natural gas plant on a 46-acre parcel, with the idea of selling the electricity to a data center on an adjacent 100-acre plot; the company clarified that it would not build, own or operate that center. Huffman recalled that the construction of a Louis Dreyfus Company soybean processing plant was already stretching local infrastructure. Nearly 77% of Upper Sandusky voters approved an amendment to the city charter banning data centers in the city. In a Facebook post, Smartland Energy acknowledged that its project has no future there: "We value and respect the democratic process and the outcome of the charter amendment vote."
The day after the election, the industry group Infrastructure for America published a "good actor pledge," signed by members such as Compass, Digital Realty, QTS and Vantage, to operate transparently, invest in their communities and not be a drain on local power and water infrastructure.
Dan Diorio, director of state policy and government affairs at the Data Center Coalition, argued that "data centers can play a crucial role in advancing affordability for Americans through job creation, local tax revenue, and bringing investment and opportunity to local communities." He warned that "communities that signal that they are closed for business and investment may miss out on those opportunities."
The rejection crossed party lines and was tied to concerns about energy costs, pollution, water use, noise and the conversion of farmland. An NBC exit poll found that 56% of voters considered artificial intelligence and data centers a "crucial or major factor" in their vote for Congress, and a UMass Amherst poll found that only 11% of Americans would support an AI data center in their community. Nick Owens, an attorney with Conserve Ohio, summed it up: "It's one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen: people coming together across communities, putting partisan differences aside and uniting (to oppose data centers)."
