Key Takeaways
Voters in 10 states decided 41 local data center measures on November 3, and the results “almost unanimously skewed against data center development,” according to the law firm Venable.
Ohio held 21 of the measures across 18 municipalities, and at least 14 of those communities passed bans or restrictions.
The tools ranged from outright bans and 25 MW caps to retroactive moratoriums, popular-vote requirements and financial guarantees for tax breaks.
Some measures reach beyond data centers: El Dorado, Kansas, also restricted certain battery storage installations.
Venable expects state legislatures to take up many of the same ideas in 2027, which makes these local votes an early read on statewide rules.
Local voters approved limits on data centers in nearly all of the 41 measures on the November 3 ballot, through bans, megawatt caps, moratoriums and voter-approval requirements. Owners and developers of large-load sites now face a ballot risk in communities with active referendum processes, and some ordinances define large loads broadly enough to reach battery storage and other power-intensive uses.
Forty-One Votes, One Direction
Forty-one local ballot measures on data center development went to voters in 10 states on November 3, and nearly every one went against new development. “These results almost unanimously skewed against data center development,” the law firm Venable wrote the next day.
Ohio carried more than half the load. Voters in 18 Ohio municipalities decided 21 measures, and at least 14 of those communities passed bans or other restrictions, Fortune reported. All five central Ohio communities with measures on the ballot voted against data centers. Ballotpedia had flagged Ohio in September as the state with the most local data center measures of 2026.
The votes arrived as research put a number on the cost concern behind them. A Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas working paper estimates that data center demand had raised U.S. wholesale electricity prices 6.9% by 2025, and 15% in Northern Virginia, the largest data center market, with a projected 12.3% national effect by 2028.
What the Measures Actually Do
The measures used five distinct tools, and each carries a different kind of risk for a site.
Outright bans. Granville, Hubbard and Urbana in Ohio now prohibit data centers within municipal limits. Pataskala and Trenton prohibit large-scale data centers; Trenton’s passed with about 80% of the vote. Piqua and Upper Sandusky adopted charter amendments barring construction. Alhambra, California, and Edgewater, Florida, adopted bans of their own, with Edgewater’s charter amendment barring new data centers from being approved, built, expanded or operated.
Size caps. Ottawa, Kansas, bars data centers over 25 MW. Sunbury, Conneaut, Defiance and Oregon in Ohio adopted the same 25 MW ceiling. North Berwick, Maine, set its line at 25,000 square feet.
Moratoriums. Wells, Maine, adopted a retroactive 180-day moratorium on facilities of 100,000 square feet or more. Peru and Wiscasset, Maine, adopted 180-day and six-month pauses.
Voter approval. Grove City, Ohio, now requires a public referendum for large industrial projects, including data centers. Janesville, Wisconsin, requires a popular vote for projects above $450 million on the former General Motors site, which covers a proposed $8 billion, 800 MW campus.
Conditions on incentives. Perry, Ohio, approved with more than 87% of the vote a rule that hyperscale developers seeking tax breaks must post financial guarantees for promised jobs, tax revenue and community payments, along with new noise limits.
Voters in Wilmington, Ohio, rejected rezoning in four referendums, and Ashville voted to block a campus already under construction. Bloomington and Morgan County in Illinois passed advisory measures that carry no legal force but signal where local officials are likely to go next.
Why Voters Said No
Electricity bills drove much of the campaign. Keith Durkin, director of Ohio Northern University’s Institute for Civics and Public Policy, told Fortune that strong turnout would signal to statehouses that ratepayer protections and transparency should lead policy agendas, and noted the absence of any industry counter-campaign: “I’ve never seen any pro-data center advertising.”
Secrecy was the second theme. In Barnes County, North Dakota, commissioners extended a data center moratorium to May after residents objected that developers used nondisclosure agreements to secure farmland before neighbors could weigh in. University of Michigan researcher Ben Green told Fortune that on secrecy, “no one’s really a fan of that.”
The industry’s trade group, the Data Center Coalition, has said it wants to keep working with policymakers and communities, according to Inside Towers. Developers argue that data centers bring tax revenue and construction jobs and that new rules can require them to pay their own grid costs. The pending Senate permitting bill, S. 5653, would require new data centers of 20 MW or more to pay the full cost of the grid upgrades they need.
The Spillover Risk for Other Property Types
Most measures target data centers by name, but definitions vary, and some reach further. El Dorado, Kansas, prohibited high-impact data centers and also Type 2 and Type 3 battery storage. A cap written in megawatts can apply to any single use that draws that much power, depending on how the ordinance defines the facility.
That matters for owners planning onsite batteries, cold storage, large manufacturing or EV fleet depots in the same communities. A 25 MW threshold sits well above most commercial buildings, but large distribution campuses with fleet charging and storage can approach it. Square-foot thresholds, such as North Berwick’s 25,000 square feet, are easier to trip.
Self-powered projects face the same scrutiny. In Cromwell, Connecticut, a developer proposes a data center on its own gas-fired microgrid with an $8 million annual host fee. A resident’s zoning amendment would require 100% offgrid renewable power, a 500-foot setback from homes and a one-mile buffer from schools, and the Planning and Zoning Commission will consider a six-month moratorium at a December 3 hearing.
What Comes Next
Venable expects state legislatures to propose many changes in 2027 and describes the local measures as a preview of state action. Bills in Congress point the same way: the AI Data Center Moratorium Act, S. 4214 and H.R. 9442, would pause new AI data center construction and major expansions, though it has not advanced.
The practical effect for site selection is a new gate. Developers already screen sites for transmission access, water and zoning. A community with an active referendum process, a history of citizen initiatives or a pending moratorium now carries a timing risk that belongs in the underwriting model, because a ballot question can add six months to a year before a project can proceed.
A Year of Votes, One Result
November continued a pattern that started earlier in the year. Ballotpedia tracked six local data center measures decided before November, and all six favored limits, including bans in Canterbury, New Hampshire, and Monterey Park, California. The November ballot multiplied that count nearly sevenfold.
The mechanism matters as much as the count. A popular-vote requirement, like those in Grove City and Janesville, turns a zoning approval into a campaign. A developer that wins a planning commission vote must then win an electorate, on a timeline set by the election calendar. In Janesville, that requirement now covers the proposed 800 MW campus outright.
Rural counties are writing rules from scratch. Barnes County, North Dakota, is drafting an ordinance that would set baseline application and facility standards for data center projects of any size, using rules from other North Dakota counties as models. Public readings will precede a final vote. Counties without zoning codes for large loads are likely to pause first and write standards second, which adds months to any project that arrives before the rules are done.
Technology watchdog groups argue the midterm results show voters reject AI data centers broadly, Inside Towers reported. The local measures themselves are narrower: most set size limits, conditions or voter-approval steps, and some leave room for smaller projects that meet local terms.
Implications, Opportunities and Risks for Owners
Implication: Land values split. Industrial and agricultural land zoned by right for large loads in communities without restrictions gains scarcity value; land in communities that passed caps or bans loses its data center option.
Opportunity: Transparency as a selling point. Projects that disclose power sources, water use and cost allocation early, and that offer enforceable community benefits, give local officials a reason to support them. Perry’s financial guarantee rule shows what voters will accept.
Opportunity: Smaller, flexible loads. Projects below 25 MW, or those that pair load with onsite batteries and accept curtailment, fit under many of the new caps.
Risk: Definitions that reach your property. Review each ordinance for how it defines a data center, a large load or battery storage before planning onsite energy projects in affected towns.
Risk: Retroactive pauses. Wells, Maine, applied its moratorium retroactively. Approvals in hand may not protect projects that have not broken ground.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many data center ballot measures passed on November 3?
Venable reports that 41 measures in 10 states were decided and that results almost unanimously favored limits. In Ohio, at least 14 of 18 communities with measures passed bans or restrictions.
Do these measures affect property types other than data centers?
Some do. El Dorado, Kansas, also restricted certain battery storage, and caps written in megawatts or square feet can apply to other large single uses depending on the ordinance text.
Will states adopt similar rules?
Venable expects state legislatures to propose many changes in 2027 that track the local measures.
What can developers do to reduce ballot risk?
Disclose power and water plans early, offer enforceable community benefit agreements and financial guarantees, avoid nondisclosure agreements with local governments and consider designs that fit under local size caps.
Sources
Ballotpedia. “Data Center-Related Ballot Measures, 2026.” 2026. https://ballotpedia.org/Data_center-related_ballot_measures,_2026
Ballotpedia News. “Ohio Leads States in Number of Local Ballot Measures on Data Centers for 2026.” Sept. 21, 2026. https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/09/21/ohio-leads-states-in-number-of-local-ballot-measures-on-data-centers-for-2026/
Congress.gov. “S.5653, Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026: Text.” 2026. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/5653/text
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. “Processing Power: Data Centers and Wholesale Electricity Prices (Working Paper 2606).” Revised Oct. 2026. https://www.dallasfed.org/research/papers/2026/wp2606
Fortune. “Ohio Data Center Ballot Measures in the Midterm Elections.” Nov. 4, 2026. https://fortune.com/2026/11/04/ohio-data-center-ballot-measures-midterm-elections/
Inside Towers. “Congress Holds Vote Today on Data Center Regs.” Nov. 9, 2026. https://insidetowers.com/congress-holds-vote-today-on-data-center-regs/
KFGO. “Barnes County Extends Data Center Moratorium to Draft Local Rules.” Nov. 6, 2026. https://kfgo.com/2026/11/06/1372510/
Ohio Northern University. “Northern Poll Provides Key Insight Into Ohio Voters’ Views on Critical Zoning Issues.” Nov. 5, 2025. https://www.onu.edu/news/northern-poll-provides-key-insight-ohio-voters-views-critical-zoning-issues
Venable LLP. “Voters Approve Data Center Restrictions.” Nov. 4, 2026. https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2026/11/voters-approve-data-center-restrictions
WFSB. “Cromwell Reconsiders Moratorium to Pause New Data Center Developments.” Nov. 5, 2026. https://www.wfsb.com/2026/11/05/cromwell-considers-moratorium-pause-new-data-center-developments/