Noncitizens Charged in Election-Related Cases Across 25 States!

voting booth with American flag graphics — Photo: Rob Crandall / Shutterstock

Voters across the country drew a bright red line on runaway data-center growth, and they did it city by city.

Story Snapshot

At least 38 localities passed bans or limits on data centers on election day
Ballots in 10 states featured 41 measures on data-center policy, many to restrict growth
Several wins were binding: square-footage bans, megawatt caps, and multi-year moratoria
Electricity, water, and control over mega-projects drove the toughest measures

A Nationwide Map Of Local “No” Votes

The election did not deliver one marquee fight; it produced dozens. The Washington Post counted at least 38 jurisdictions that voted to restrict or ban data centers. These were not clustered in one region. The results landed in parts of the Midwest, Northeast, and Sun Belt. This spread shows a broad civic push to slow growth and reset terms. It also shows that city charters and zoning codes, long ignored, now shape the front line of national computing demand.

Ballotpedia tracked 41 local ballot measures on data-center policy in 10 states. Most aimed to slow or stop development. Many passed. That number signals planning fatigue with promises that feel vague and costs that feel real. The Atlantic separately reported residents in at least 10 states voting on dozens of restrictions, reinforcing that this was not a single-state outlier. It was a wave of local control across diverse communities with different politics and markets.

From Abstract Concern To Hard Law

Voters did not only send a message; they wrote rules. Reported examples include a North Berwick, Maine ban on data centers 25,000 square feet or larger, and a Sabattus, Maine moratorium on facilities of at least 10,000 square feet or 20 megawatts that runs until May 2027. El Dorado, Kansas approved a 10-year ban on high-impact data centers and large battery storage systems. That move targeted facilities with large power and water demands, and it forced a time-out on rapid, speculative builds.

Other measures set clear tripwires on electricity and water. Coverage highlighted a Kansas measure banning centers above 25 megawatts. Reporting on El Dorado described limits affecting sites using more than 100,000 gallons of water per day. Janesville, Wisconsin voters required public approval before any redevelopment of a former auto plant site for a massive project. That requirement put voters between land and bulldozer, and it made “community buy-in” more than a slogan.

How Voters Asserted Control

Communities used two main tools. Some imposed direct bans or time-bound moratoria. Others created procedural checkpoints that force deals into daylight. Edgewater, Florida approved a charter change banning new data centers and limiting expansion. Wilmington voters rejected four zoning ordinances that would have rezoned 545 acres for data-center use. Janesville added a voter-approval step before any mega-redevelopment. Together, these moves tightened gating at both the legal and political levels.

Secondary tallies differ on the exact count, but they all point in one direction. The pattern shows voters demanding slower timelines, fuller cost accounting, and a say on siting. That demand crosses party lines and regions. States as different as California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, New Jersey, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin appeared in the results, with Ohio municipalities and Maine towns especially active in setting new limits and conditions.

Why The Backlash Found Traction

Power, water, and trust drove the votes. Residents see data centers as giant loads on local grids that someone must pay to serve. National outlets covered concerns about rate impacts, reliability, and big-ticket upgrades triggered by a few large users. People also worry about daily water draws in places that face drought cycles, and about truck traffic, noise, and heat plumes. These are classic host-community pains for projects that primarily serve a wider market.

Published reporting shows voters used blunt tools because finer tools felt missing. If utilities cannot show clear cost allocation, people assume households will eat the bill. If developers cannot show water balances, people assume risk flows to them. That instinct aligns with conservative values of local control, transparent costs, and stewardship. When city charters and zoning are the only levers at hand, expect strong pulls until utilities, cities, and firms share clearer numbers and better terms.