Yes: Data Centers on the Ballot on Election Day in Towns Across the U.S. 

This is what democracy looks like. 

After a long, hot summer in Emporia, Kansas, in which residents fought back and demanded that data centers in their small city be put to a vote, city leaders relented. Next week, on Election Day, voters in the polite Midwest community will get to vote thumbs up or down on the future of data centers there. 

But Emporians aren’t alone. In all, there are at least 41 ballot initiatives in communities throughout America in this year’s election. It pits the interests of the world’s richest and most powerful companies and executives against Main Street. 

Voters in Emporia, in east-central Kansas, will decide Nov. 3 whether to prohibit high-impact data centers throughout the city, including on land rezoned this summer for a proposed computing campus. It comes after a year of fiery opposition to a 1,000-acre, gigawatt-scale data center proposed by a company run largely by out-of-state ownership.

The ballot order came from a hearing in the city’s pending lawsuit over whether residents can enact the ban through a citizen petition. Even if voters approve it, the ordinance cannot take effect until the court resolves that case or issues another order.

It came to a head during a summer public hearing. The small Emporia meeting room was packed, residents demanding more of a say and doubting city officials who had responded cautiously to resident opposition.

“It finally dawned on me,” said one resident who stood up at that July meeting. “Y’all don’t care how many statistics or examples we show y’all. Y’all don’t care how much we’ve shown you how much we love this city, how much we love the environment that surrounds it, and how much we don’t want another huge soulless building amongst us.”

They wanted a vote. And after a push and pull of examining what was legally permitted or required, and after residents presented their petition, it worked.

The vote puts Emporia, a city of about 24,000 people, among communities using local elections to decide how much control residents should have over data center development. Other ballots address proposed bans, moratoriums, zoning decisions and advisory questions.

Voters in 38 cities, villages, townships and counties across 10 states will decide 41 local ballot measures related to data centers on Nov. 3, according to Ballotpedia. Ohio accounts for 21 of the measures, followed by Illinois with seven, Maine with four and Kansas with three. 

The measures range from outright bans and temporary moratoriums to rezoning referendums and advisory questions. In communities with specific projects pending, the votes bear on at least 4.85 gigawatts of planned data center load across five sites: an up to 1.8-gigawatt campus in Joliet, Illinois; a Meta campus in Piqua, Ohio, that city staff put at 1,400 megawatts; a site near the former Stuart power plant in Adams County, Ohio, where AES Ohio has told PJM Interconnection it expects customer demand to reach 1,300 megawatts by 2032; a 250-megawatt Prologis project in Trenton, Ohio; and a 100-megawatt proposal in Monroeville, Ohio. 

The total does not include the Flint Hills Digital Campus in Emporia, which has been described as gigawatt-scale without a specific figure.

Emporia’s Question No. 2 would prohibit the construction, installation, operation and maintenance of a high-impact data center anywhere within city limits. The proposed ordinance applies to a facility used primarily for computing if its peak electrical load exceeds 10 megawatts or it draws more than 100,000 gallons of water a day. Its definition includes server farms, colocation sites, artificial intelligence training facilities and cryptocurrency mining operations. A yes vote supports the prohibition.

The local turmoil in Emporia includes many of the same characteristics of others across the county: a large project, local officials struggling to handle resident uprising, legal questions unique to the state, and a desire to avoid costly lawsuits.

The question arose as a company with a data center ambition, Kanza Park Place LLC advanced plans for the Flint Hills Digital Campus. Local economic development organizations announced the proposal in June and described it as a project in the planning stage. The Emporia City Commission annexed land requested by the developer, then voted July 22 to create a Digital Infrastructure Overlay District, rezone 11 tracts for industrial use and apply the overlay to them. The district sets additional requirements when digital infrastructure is the primary use, including studies of power, water, wastewater, traffic, noise and environmental effects.

Those zoning decisions did not authorize construction. But the speed at which the plan was moving along caught residents offguard and they pushed for the ballot initiative. Ultimately, after seeking a court ruling, city officials went along with the idea. 

Kansas law limits how an initiative ordinance can be changed after voters enact it. A governing body must wait 10 years before amending or repealing such an ordinance on its own; voters can change it through another election. If the Emporia measure becomes law, a later commission would have limited room to adjust its thresholds or geographic reach without returning to the electorate.

In many ways, Emporia exemplifies middle America. With a population of about 24,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and a median household income of about $53,000, business leaders have described the proposed data center campus as a possible source of high-paying jobs for the future. 

Residents and elected officials, both, are grappling with data center turmoil in other states and regions.

Ohio has a cluster of local data center questions on the Nov. 3 ballot. In Piqua, a proposed charter amendment would prohibit facilities above 25 megawatts, according to the Miami County Board of Elections notice. In Urbana, a proposed charter amendment would prohibit data centers while exempting single-organization facilities under 7.5 megawatts. In Oregon, Ohio, voters will decide Issue 25, a proposal to bar data centers with aggregate monthly demand or peak load above 25 megawatts.

Other Ohio votes address specific government actions. Ashville voters will consider a referendum on a resolution approving terms with EdgeConneX for two data centers and a natural-gas plant on village property. Wilmington voters face four separate referendums on rezonings to light industrial use. 

In Perry, Issue 16 concerns the village fiscal officer’s duties before signing certain agreements with a hyperscale data center involving tax abatements or payments in lieu of taxes.

Courts have already shaped which Ohio proposals reached voters. The state Supreme Court ordered Ashville’s referendum petition certified Aug. 7, leaving the board of elections to decide whether the village resolution is administrative. The court also ordered a data center charter petition in Trenton certified after finding its 336 valid signatures exceeded the required 128. The court separately kept a citizen zoning initiative in Wilmington off the ballot, while four referendums on individual zoning ordinances remain listed in the county election notice.

Alhambra, California, will vote on Measure DB, which would affirm a citywide prohibition. Wiscasset, Maine, will decide whether to enact a data center moratorium; the town’s ballot warrant does not state how long it would last. Wells, Maine, has a proposed 180-day moratorium measured retroactively from June 16. In Joliet Township, Illinois, voters will answer an advisory question about whether the Joliet City Council should approve artificial intelligence data centers.

Boulder City, Nevada, asks whether data centers should be an approved land use in part of the Eldorado Valley Transfer Area. Downe Township, New Jersey, asks whether residents support data centers, with an explanatory statement linking the question to a potential ban.

In Emporia, approval would establish voters’ support for a citywide ban. The court must still decide whether the proposed ordinance is a proper subject for a citizen initiative. If not, the process could start from the beginning.