How Local Voters Are Using Ballot Measures to Ban New Data Centers

If a tech developer wants to build a hyperscale data center in your town, the traditional playbook is straightforward: negotiate with the city council, promise a surge in local tax revenue, and secure the necessary zoning permits. But in 2026, residents across the United States are rewriting that playbook. Concerned about the massive electricity and water demands required to power artificial intelligence, communities are bypassing their elected officials entirely and taking the issue directly to the ballot box.

This year, voters will decide on at least 10 local ballot measures related to data centers across seven states, including California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The measures are designed to limit, regulate, or outright prohibit the construction of new data centers. In every decided case so far this year, a majority of voters have favored greater limits on data center development.[1]

The most decisive example of this new civic mechanism occurred in Monterey Park, California. The conflict began when an Australian investment firm proposed a 247,000-square-foot data center that would have sat less than 500 feet from residential homes. The facility was projected to use triple the electricity of the entire 60,000-person city. Facing intense community backlash over potential air quality issues, noise from diesel generators, and the strain on the local power grid, the developer ultimately withdrew the project in March.[3][7]

However, the community did not stop there. Recognizing that a future city council could quietly approve a similar project, officials placed Measure NDC on the June special election ballot. The measure amended the city's land-use framework to permanently prohibit data centers citywide. It passed in a landslide, with 86 percent of voters in favor. Because it was enacted by the voters, the ban can only be reversed by another citywide election, effectively locking the tech industry out of the municipality.[3][4]

The Monterey Park vote is widely considered the first voter-enacted municipal ban on data center development in the United States, but it is already inspiring organizers in other states. In Ohio, local groups in Sunbury and Trenton have gathered signatures for charter amendments that would prohibit the construction of data centers requiring more than 25 megawatts of power. Advocates in Ohio are also laying the groundwork for a statewide constitutional amendment to ban large-scale data centers entirely.[1][3]

The shift toward direct democracy reflects a deep and bipartisan skepticism of the physical infrastructure powering the AI boom. A June 2026 Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 57 percent of Americans would oppose a data center being built in their community, while only 14 percent would be comfortable living near one. A separate Stockton University poll of New Jersey voters found that 56 percent would support banning data centers in their own communities, with respondents expressing concern over environmental sustainability and the potential for rising energy costs.[5]

For the tech industry, this wave of local opposition represents a significant bottleneck. The Data Center Coalition, a trade association representing the industry, has argued that bans like the one in Monterey Park send a signal that an area is "closed for business." Developers emphasize that data centers bring high-paying tech jobs and substantial tax revenue that can fund local schools and infrastructure. However, residents counter that the facilities employ relatively few people once construction is complete, while the burden on the electrical grid is permanent.[7]

To understand why voters are taking this unprecedented step, it is necessary to look at the scale of modern data centers. A single hyperscale facility can consume as much power as a small city and require millions of gallons of water per day for cooling.

When these facilities connect to the local grid, utilities often have to build new transmission lines and power plants to meet the demand. In many states, the cost of those infrastructure upgrades is passed on to everyday ratepayers, leading to higher monthly utility bills for homeowners.[2][4]

City councils and state legislatures are often caught in the middle. State lawmakers have been increasingly willing to take up the populist call against data centers, with more than 300 bills addressing the facilities introduced across state legislatures in early 2026. Currently, 40 states have some form of active data center ban or moratorium in place, counting both local and statewide restrictions. In total, 94 local moratoriums and bans have passed in 2026 alone, a fourfold increase over the previous year.[6]

Yet, statewide action is politically complex. Legislators must weigh community concerns against the desire to attract billions of dollars in tech investment. In Maine, the legislature passed a bill that would have paused data center construction until November 2027, but Governor Janet Mills vetoed it, arguing that it would block a specific project that enjoyed local support and promised to replace jobs lost by a paper mill closure. This tension highlights why data centers are fundamentally a hyper-local issue.[2]

Because state-level moratoriums can be vetoed or watered down by lobbying, residents are increasingly relying on the citizen-initiative process. In the 23 states that allow citizen-initiated ballot measures, advocates have a direct path to circumvent the legislative and executive branches entirely. By gathering enough signatures, they can force a public vote on zoning restrictions, ensuring that the people who live next to the proposed sites have the final say.[2]

Even in states without a statewide initiative process, local referendums are proving effective. In Maryland, organizers in Frederick County successfully collected enough signatures to place a referendum on the ballot to overturn a county ordinance that had approved 2,600 acres for data center development. Unlike an initiative, which proposes a new policy, a referendum acts as a citizen veto, allowing voters to directly cancel a decision made by their local representatives.[2]

The legal mechanics of these bans will likely face challenges in the coming years. Tech developers and utility companies may argue that local zoning bans conflict with state economic development goals or regional energy policies. In South Dakota, lawmakers anticipated this conflict and passed a law explicitly prohibiting the state from limiting local governments' authority to regulate or ban data centers, effectively shifting the power to municipalities.[2]

As the 2026 midterm elections approach, the data center debate is proving to be a rare unifying issue. Opposition groups have more than doubled in the past year, and the backlash does not follow typical ideological fault lines. Whether in deep-blue California or deep-red Ohio, the core argument remains the same: communities want the power to decide whether the benefits of the AI revolution are worth the physical toll on their hometowns.[1][3]