OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Voters Back Data Center Restrictions in Midterm Ballots

27 sources · updated 2026-11-06
Left 41% Center 44% Right 15%
11 left · 12 center · 4 right

What happened

During the November 3, 2026 U.S. midterm elections, voters in localities in at least 10 states considered dozens of ballot measures on the construction of data centers, the large facilities that house computers for artificial intelligence and other online services. Analyses by Ballotpedia and CNBC found 41 such measures; voters backed restrictions, bans, or moratoriums—or rejected language that would have eased development—in every case except Harwood, North Dakota, a town of roughly 900 people that defeated a proposal for additional review of large industrial projects, including data centers, by 325 to 105. Ohio accounted for 21 of the measures. Democrats who had campaigned on pausing or tightening rules for the facilities won several high-profile races in major data-center markets, including Gina Hinojosa over incumbent Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in Texas, Amy Acton over Vivek Ramaswamy for Ohio governor, and Sherrod Brown over Sen. Jon Husted in Ohio. Ohio has been a focal point for planned AI campuses, and Texas has been projected to become one of the world’s largest data-center markets.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 27 articles

16 of 25 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with unnamed sources; a named source appeared 23 hours later.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 16 of 25
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Amy Acton, North Dakota Secretary of State's office, Redbud Consulting, Blake Hankey, Mark Coolidge and Mike Swartz
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 7 of 25
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: exit poll, analysis, AdImpact data, ballot measures
Credits another outlet 0 of 25
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 1 of 25
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Nov 3, 11:00 UTC by NewsNation, with no named source. First named source 23 hours later, from Axios. First document the next day, from Business Insider (exit poll).
Not counted 2
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Right-leaning coverage never says who put the questions on the ballot, so Tuesday reads as a sudden mood swing rather than a resident-led campaign against local governments. Left-leaning coverage does. Mother Jones reported that more than half of the measures began as citizen initiatives, not as questions written by officeholders. The Intercept described towns using the ballot to get around officials who were not keeping pace with their voters. Left-leaning coverage leads with national political casualties; right-leaning coverage leads with household costs. The Guardian opened by naming Trump, Musk, and datacenters as the night's "three big losers," while Fox Business opened on electricity costs and land use. Which of the winning measures actually halt an announced facility, and which only advise a council?
Bottom line

A Fox Business reader got power bills and local no votes, but never Mother Jones' finding that residents, not officeholders, introduced more than half of the measures.

The receipts — 3 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Tech corporations and their allies outspent local citizen campaigns by approximately 100 to 1 nationwide numberin Mother Jones · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Harwood's mayor signed a nondisclosure agreement with Applied Digital, and construction began 21 days after the project was announced individual casein Business Insider · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Nick Owens, a Trump delegate at the 2024 Republican National Convention, helped draft 10 local Ohio ballot measures restricting data centers individual casein The Intercept · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets presented the night as a revolt against AI infrastructure and tech political spending, tying data centers to rising utility bills, water demand, pollution, and approvals reached under nondisclosure agreements. The Guardian named Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and datacenters the “three big losers”; Mother Jones and canvassers described siting as an environmental-justice issue, arguing facilities are “more likely to be located in communities of color.” After Democrats were projected to win the House, Rep. Greg Casar said “AI company CEOs should be called to testify under oath” and called the fight “the early tremor of a much bigger AI earthquake upending American politics.” These sources argued that large contributions—CNBC cited at least $474 million from Musk and more than $377 million from crypto, AI, and online-gambling interests—did not buy local or statewide outcomes, and that candidates who ran on moratoriums or stricter community rules prevailed.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets likewise called the results a “major setback” to AI executives and Musk, while noting that local opposition crossed party lines even as President Trump labeled data centers “GREAT FOR THE U.S.A.” and necessary to compete with China. They gave more space to industry claims that the facilities bring jobs, tax revenue, and investment; Data Center Coalition official Dan Diorio warned that communities that “signal that they are closed for business” may miss “substantial long-term economic investment, high-wage jobs, and critical tax revenue.” Fox Business cited figures that more than 145 data-center projects had already been delayed or canceled, with public opposition accounting for most setbacks. Breitbart dubbed the contest the “AI election” and treated the rebuke as a signal that Republicans need a distinct AI agenda rather than ceding the issue.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is empirical and local: the near-sweep of municipal measures, plus polls finding large majorities—including many Republicans—opposed to a new data center nearby, and a CNBC voter poll in which 56% called the issue a crucial or major factor, show residents judging real costs in rates, water, and process, and that heavy campaign spending did not reverse that judgment. The right’s strongest argument is strategic: even coverage that concedes the rebuke insists these sites are infrastructure for AI competition with China and for local tax and payroll growth, so a patchwork of bans could slow capacity in states that industry and analysts treat as central to the buildout. The unresolved tension is whether communities’ refusal to absorb the costs and secrecy they associate with these projects should outweigh a national claim that the same projects are too important to be stopped town by town.

27 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.