U.S. voters support restricting new AI data centers in 40 of 41 local ballot measures
During the U.S. midterm elections on November 3, 2026, there were 41 local ballot measures related to data centers across 10 states. According to Ballotpedia statistics and CNBC’s compiled results, voters supported restricting development or rejected measures favorable to development in 40 of them, with only one exception in Harwood, North Dakota.
Harwood voters rejected by about 75% (325 votes to 105 votes) an initiative that would have required additional review for industrial projects including data centers. Ohio alone had 21 measures, the most in the country, involving a total ban, restrictions on facilities larger than 25 megawatts, moratoriums, and zoning-related votes. Many measures passed by margins of more than 70%.
These votes mainly targeted the construction, approval, and operation of new data centers or large facilities, reflecting community concerns about electricity consumption, water use, noise, and land impacts. The relevant results were based on unofficial vote counts, and some measures were advisory in nature or required further local implementation.
Original source:
Title: Voters rebuff data centers in every ballot measure except one during the 2026 midterms Publisher: CNBC Publication date: November 5, 2026 (updated) URL: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/11/04/data-center-ballot-measures-2026-midterm.html Nature of source: News report (citing Ballotpedia and others) Verification status: Full text read; core figures are consistent with the Ballotpedia page Supporting content: 41 measures, 10 states, 40 to 1, Harwood exception, 21 measures in Ohio, etc.
ABAB AI Insight
Data center expansion depends on local land, power, and water resources, creating a direct conflict with AI promotion at the federal level and local ballots. Historically, similar large infrastructure projects, such as nuclear power plants and highways, have also often faced local resistance, but AI projects have seen a concentrated surge because of their high energy intensity and disputes over tax incentives.
The Harwood exception shows that small towns with projects already under construction and expected jobs and tax base may prioritize economic benefits over additional procedures. This contrasts with the majority of communities nationwide prioritizing restrictions on new development, indicating that the distribution of benefits and the project stage affect voting outcomes.
The high concentration in Ohio is related to the state’s earlier large-scale sales tax exemptions targeting Amazon, Meta and others, which led communities to perceive spillover costs. The concentration of capital from major technology companies in a few hyperscale projects makes local externalities easier for voters to notice and turn into voting action.
Follow-up points to watch include whether state-level legislation follows, whether existing projects are obstructed, whether developers shift to other states or adjust scale, and whether power capacity and grid investment become new constraints. Local votes do not automatically end federal or private capital plans, but they increase approval and political risks.
ABAB News · Cognition Law
Local control over land and resources has become the main political constraint on national computing-power expansion.
The difference in voting results between existing projects and new projects reflects the distributional effects of sunk costs and expected returns.
Energy-consumption externalities have created a structural opposition between community interests and industrial capital paths.