Election results · updated November 5, 2026
Voters across the country weighed in on data centers
On November 3, people in towns in ten states voted directly on data centers. Almost every time, they chose limits. Here is how it went, as far as we can source it. These counts are unofficial, and a few are still coming in.
The TLDR version
- There were 41 local data center questions in ten states. Ohio had 21 of them (Ballotpedia ↗).
- By November 4, 39 had reported unofficial results. In 38 of them, voters went toward limits. All 13 questions that would have helped a project failed (The GridSight ↗; CNBC ↗).
- The one exception: Harwood, North Dakota, where about 75% of 430 voters turned down a charter change that would have required an independent review and a public hearing for big industrial projects, including data centers. It would not have touched the Applied Digital campus the town had already approved (Route Fifty ↗).
- Still coming: two zoning questions in Adams County, Ohio; Boulder City, Nevada, where mail ballots are still being counted; and two Clarksville, Arkansas, bond questions on December 1.
- Some of the questions were advisory, which means officials do not have to follow them (Route Fifty).
- In Georgia, voters did not get a data center question, but they did pick who regulates Georgia Power. Democrats won both seats on the Public Service Commission (see below).
Ohio: 21 questions in 18 communities
Unofficial counts from The GridSight ↗ and Fortune ↗. Voters in every Ohio community that has reported voted for limits.
| Place | The question | What voters decided |
|---|---|---|
| Ashville | Uphold the village’s deal with EdgeConneX | Voted no, 82% to 18% |
| Conneaut | Ban data centers over 25 megawatts | Approved, about 2 to 1 |
| Defiance | Ban data centers over 25 megawatts | Approved, 65% to 35% |
| Granville | Ban data center construction | Approved, 82% to 18% |
| Grove City | Voter approval for large projects | Approved, 55% to 45% |
| Hubbard | Ban inside city limits | Approved, 77% to 23% |
| Monroe Township (Adams Co.) | Zoning rules for unincorporated areas | Not reported yet |
| Monroeville | Advisory: allow development | Voted no, 87% to 13% |
| Oregon (Lucas Co.) | Ban data centers over 25 megawatts | Approved, 60% to 40% |
| Pataskala | Ban large-scale data centers | Approved, 74% to 26% |
| Perry | Financial guarantees from developers who want tax breaks | Approved, over 87% |
| Piqua | Charter ban on data center construction | Approved, 67% to 33% |
| Sprigg Township (Adams Co.) | Zoning rules for unincorporated areas | Not reported yet |
| Sunbury | Ban data centers over 25 megawatts | Approved, 79% to 21% |
| Trenton | Ban large-scale data centers | Approved, 80% to 20% |
| Upper Sandusky | Charter ban on data center construction | Approved, 77% to 23% |
| Urbana | Ban inside city limits | Approved, 77% to 23% |
| Wilmington | Four referendums to uphold rezonings for data center land (65, 191, 119 and 170 acres) | All four voted down, about 80% no |
The other nine states
Unofficial counts from The GridSight ↗. “Advisory” questions ask neighbors what they think; they do not bind anyone.
| Place | The question | What voters decided |
|---|---|---|
| Alhambra, California | Ban data centers in the city | Approved, 82% to 18% |
| Edgewater, Florida | Charter amendment to lock in a ban | Approved, 77% to 23% |
| Bloomington, Illinois | Advisory: a moratorium | Approved, 78% to 22% |
| Morgan County, Illinois | Advisory: restrict building and running data centers | Approved, 88% to 12% |
| Joliet Township, Illinois | Advisory: approve AI data centers | Voted no, 79% to 21% |
| Chouteau Township, Illinois | Advisory: permitting | Voted no, 83% to 17% |
| Granite City, Nameoki and Venice Townships, Illinois | Advisory: permitting (three separate questions) | Voted no, at least 74% in each |
| El Dorado, Kansas | Ban high-impact data centers and battery storage | Approved, 71% to 29% |
| Emporia, Kansas | Ban high-impact data centers | Approved, 60% to 40% |
| Ottawa, Kansas | Ban data centers over 25 megawatts | Approved, 72% to 28% |
| North Berwick, Maine | Ban data centers of 25,000 square feet or more | Approved, 78% to 22% |
| Wells, Maine | 180-day moratorium | Approved, 82% to 18% |
| Wiscasset, Maine | Six-month moratorium | Approved, 66% to 34% |
| Peru, Maine | 180-day moratorium | Approved (no percentage reported) |
| Boulder City, Nevada | Allow data centers in the Eldorado Valley Transfer Area | Voted down; mail ballots still being counted |
| Downe Township, New Jersey | Advisory: support data centers | Voted no, 87% to 13% |
| Harwood, North Dakota | Charter change: an independent review and public hearing before big industrial projects, including data centers | The one result that went the industry’s way: voted down, 75% to 25%, of 430 voters |
| Janesville, Wisconsin | Voter approval for a site over `$450 million | Approved, 62% to 38% |
Georgia: the utility commission election
On November 3, Georgia voters picked two of the five members of the Public Service Commission, the group that regulates Georgia Power and what we pay. This was an election for the people in the job, not a vote on data centers. The Current ↗ reports:
- District 3: Peter Hubbard beat former commissioner Fitz Johnson. When the Associated Press called it, Hubbard led by 13 points.
- District 5: Shelia Edwards beat Josh Tolbert for the seat Tricia Pridemore left. Edwards led by 10 points.
- Democrats now hold a majority of the commission for the first time in 30 years (the article does not give the split; Democrats hold Districts 2, 3 and 5).
- The commission has faced more scrutiny over rate increases and the demand spike Georgia Power links to data centers. Georgia Power's next long-term plan is due in 2028, and a rate case is expected after it.
Effingham County, Georgia
Three Effingham County commissioners were on the ballot. The Board of Commissioners is the body that has been weighing OpenAI's Project Camellia data center site. These are unofficial counts from the Effingham Herald ↗, with all 20 precincts reporting. The Board of Elections is expected to certify them on Monday.
| Seat | Votes | Status |
|---|---|---|
| District 2 | Roger Burdette 2,986 (54.9%) · Darlene Ainsworth 2,451 (45.1%) | Burdette leads |
| District 3 | Jamie DeLoach 3,349 (63.4%) · Scott Hoffman 1,932 (36.6%) | DeLoach leads |
| District 5 | Phil Kieffer 3,182 (94.3%) · James Daniels (write-in) 193 (5.7%) | Kieffer leads; remaining write-in ballots were still being reviewed |
Turnout was 25,621 voters, about 50% of registered voters.
Decided earlier in 2026
According to Ballotpedia, voters in each of these places favored more limits, either by approving a restriction or by turning down a measure that would have made data centers easier:
- Canterbury, New Hampshire: a ban was approved.
- Nottingham, New Hampshire: a moratorium was approved.
- Port Washington, Wisconsin, and Monterey Park, California: restrictions were approved.
- Augusta Township, Michigan: a rezoning for a proposed data center was defeated.
- Wrightstown, Wisconsin: a non-binding measure in support was defeated.
Why this matters in Statesboro
These were questions for people to decide in their own towns, in public, with a vote. In Statesboro, the City Council passed its data center ordinance without one. Neighbors here have asked for the same thing: a say. Whatever you think about data centers, that is worth asking for.
If voters in Ohio, Kansas, Maine and elsewhere could vote directly on data centers in their own towns, why can't voters here? Will the City or the County put any data center rule to a public vote, or at least hold hearings in a room big enough for everyone who wants to speak?