Voters Push Back as Big Tech Eyes Data-Center Power

Voters opposed data-center construction or supported restrictions in 40 of 41 local ballot measures, hitting the brakes on an industry whose growth depends on local land, water and power. The Nov. 3 midterms also gave Democrats control of both chambers of Congress, while candidates calling for tougher oversight won key races. For communities facing the cost of the buildout, the message came through local ballots and state campaigns. For technology companies, it means another stretch of political uncertainty.

Local Votes, Local Costs

The measures ranged from moratoriums to zoning and development restrictions. The New York Times reported that more than half were in Ohio. CNBC counted 41 measures across 10 states and said voters opposed data centers everywhere except Harwood, North Dakota. There, about three-fourths of voters—around 430 people—rejected a charter amendment that would require extra review before the city could approve industrial projects, including data centers.

Residents and local officials have raised concerns over electricity bills, water use, noise, pollution and public incentives offered to developers. The Atlantic reported that more than 80% of Americans thought AI was moving too quickly, while more than 70% opposed a data center in their area. Some towns recalled mayors accused of putting data-center companies ahead of their constituents. These local efforts aim to limit decisions often driven by developers and the political officials who approve projects.

The scale of construction helps explain the fights. CBRE reported 7,481 megawatts of data-center capacity under construction across eight major North American markets in the first half of 2026, nearly 25% more than a year earlier. Texas had more operating and under-construction data-center capacity than any other state. A Bloom Energy report projected it would account for nearly 30% of U.S. capacity by 2028.

Oversight Meets Corporate Power

Democrats flipped at least seven Senate seats and more than two dozen Republican-held House seats, though some races remain undecided. Rep. Greg Casar said Democrats “must make it a top priority to protect Americans' jobs, freedom and lives from AI billionaires.” He called for AI company CEOs to testify under oath and for Congress to investigate their companies’ effects on people. Sen. Ed Markey wrote online that Big Tech executives were “going to need to plant new forests for all of the subpoenas we'll be printing.”

Congressional oversight and legislative bargaining will shape what comes next. The Washington Post reported that Democrats would likely investigate Big Tech and alleged industry-related corruption before pursuing legislation. Darrell West, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, predicted, “Expect a tsunami of new rules and oversight.” President Trump could veto federal legislation, though, and Michael Strobaek, global chief investment officer at Lombard Odier, said Democrats might need “substantial Republican support” to overcome a veto.

State officials are also making competing promises. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott directed regulators to develop requirements making data centers cover energy-infrastructure costs, halted new grid-connection approvals during an audit, and later told officials to enforce water-use reporting and pause new permits pending audits. Texas gubernatorial winner Gina Hinojosa called Abbott's approach “nothing more than an election year stunt.” She promised a construction moratorium and an end to subsidies and tax breaks for major developers. Ohio winner Amy Acton backed a conditional moratorium unless developers covered all utility costs, used union labor and met environmental standards. Georgia winner Keisha Lance Bottoms promised a temporary statewide pause to assess effects on electricity bills, communities and the environment.

The Money Wants a National Rulebook

Candidates calling for limits enter a political arena already crowded with technology money. CNBC reported that crypto, AI and online-gambling interests contributed more than $377 million, and that 14 of the 20 largest donor groups backed Republicans almost exclusively. AI-focused PACs American Mission and Building the Future collectively spent $4.8 million backing South Carolina Senate candidate Darlene Graham, who lost. Leading the Future supports a single national AI framework that would override state laws and said it planned to keep spending in the 2028 elections.

The market reaction showed the gap between neighborhood opposition and investor confidence. On Wednesday, Amazon rose 8%, Google more than 6%, Microsoft 4%, Meta 3% and Apple nearly 7%. David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Asset Management, said the election results removed uncertainty. Meanwhile, Reuters reported that Core Scientific fell 11.6% and Iren 12.5% as the Democratic sweep became apparent. Analysts said well-capitalized operators could benefit if projects slowed in some states, while new entrants could face higher costs.

The money itself showed the limits of reform. Needham analyst Laura Martin wrote, “We believe higher regulatory barriers entrench incumbents, and increase risks (and raise required ROICs) for new entrants,” adding, “Hyperscalers are AI incumbents.” Voters can slow projects locally, and lawmakers can summon executives to hearings. Technology companies are already spending to shape which rules survive and whether local rules can be overridden. The contest over who decides—and who pays for the power, water and infrastructure—has shifted to a new set of ballots and committee agendas.