Ohio Votes on Data Centers Today: The Local Ballot Measures in Grove City, Piqua, Trenton and More

Ohio voters are deciding about 20 local data center questions today, November 3, 2026. The ballots range from charter amendments that cap project size to a 25 megawatt ban and recalls of mayors who signed data center deals. The exact count varies by outlet, and the legal fights over which questions made the ballot are still running. For anyone who depends on AI compute, this is the clearest test so far of whether local opposition can set the rules for where the buildout goes.

This post pulls together what TIME, WOSU, the Ohio Capital Journal and Spectrum News report. We could read the full TIME article. WOSU and the Ohio Capital Journal blocked our fetch, so for those two we rely on the figures their own headlines and search summaries state, and we mark them that way. Our earlier post on where ten midterm races stand on a pause covers the candidates. This one covers the ballot questions themselves.

TL;DR: Ohio's data center ballot questions

What is actually on the ballot?

Three kinds of questions show up across Ohio. They do different things, so lumping them together as "anti-data-center votes" hides the details.

Charter or zoning bans. TIME reports that at least ten localities vote on adding a data center ban to their charters. WOSU and Spectrum News describe a group of citizen petitions modeled on a statewide effort to ban data centers that draw more than 25 megawatts. Summaries of that reporting name Conneaut, Defiance, Granville, Oregon, Pataskala, Piqua, Sunbury, Trenton and Upper Sandusky among the communities with measures of this type. A 25 megawatt line is low for modern AI campuses, which are often planned in the hundreds of megawatts. A cap at that level would, in effect, ban the large facilities that AI labs and hyperscalers build.

Project-specific referenda. Some questions target one proposal. The Ohio Capital Journal reported that a referendum on a proposed data center in Ashville and the 25 megawatt measure in Trenton made the ballot after legal fights. A group of Sidney petitions will likely go to a special election instead, according to the same reporting.

Recalls. TIME reports that two other localities decide whether to recall mayors who approved data center deals. Piqua is the best documented case.

A small cluster of houses with a blank sign, showing local data center opposition in Ohio communities

Grove City: a vote on a $6.9 billion proposal

Grove City, about 10 miles outside Columbus, is the most-watched race, according to WOSU's summary. TIME gives the fullest account.

• Headwaters Site Development, a Texas firm, proposes a 310-acre data center it calls "Project Maple," valued at $6.9 billion. The company says it will sell the finished site to an unnamed tech company.
• Headwaters says the project would bring 250 permanent jobs, and it pledged a 100-foot height limit and landscaping to hide the buildings.
• The company offered about $1.5 million for 30 acres owned by resident Patty Spillman's mother-in-law, who declined. Spillman told TIME: "This is our community. What if we don't want you here?"
• Council passed a one-year moratorium 6 to 1 in June. It was sponsored by Councilman Mohamed Omar, 26.
• On the ballot is a charter amendment. It would require a public vote for developments that occupy at least 50 acres, use more than 20 megawatts at peak, or consume more than 500,000 gallons of water per day.

The three thresholds matter. Acreage, megawatts and water are the three resources a hyperscale site needs. A town that passes this kind of amendment does not ban data centers outright. It makes the big ones prove themselves to voters first. TIME reports that Mayor Richard "Ike" Stage, in office since 1988, opposes the amendment.

Piqua: a recall tied to a Meta campus

TIME reports that Meta is planning a $1 billion campus in Piqua. According to TIME, the deal was reportedly negotiated in secret through a private LLC and nondisclosure agreements, and several city officials reportedly received $3,000 bonuses after winning Meta's business. Residents petitioned to put a recall of the mayor and other elected officials on the November ballot.

We have not seen a court finding or an official statement on the bonuses, so treat these as reported claims. The secrecy angle is the same one that pushed Amazon to drop data center NDAs and Google to stop NDAs with local officials. Voters are showing that if the industry does not change on disclosure, residents will use recalls as a lever.

Why Ohio, and why now?

Ohio is not a random case. TIME reports it has about 200 data centers. The average household electric bill rose about 15% in the past year and over 66% in the past decade. A September Bowling Green State University survey found nearly 80% of Ohioans support a data center moratorium. More than 100 Ohio local governments have reportedly enacted moratoriums.

The money side is more mixed. TIME cites an Ohio Chamber of Commerce report that data centers received an estimated $2.5 billion in state incentives from 2017 to 2024, and that the same report estimates they brought in twice that in state revenue. That is the industry's best argument, and it is a claim from a business group. Voters are weighing it against rising bills.

Ohio is also where Nvidia and OpenAI's $250 billion financing arrangement points a 10 gigawatt build, which is why national AI companies have a stake in what happens in these small jurisdictions.

How the local votes tie to the top-of-ticket races

The ballot questions run alongside high-profile races that TIME describes.

• U.S. Senate. Democrat Sherrod Brown attacks Republican Jon Husted over data center growth under his time as lieutenant governor. TIME reports that Husted says data centers should be a local decision, and that he sponsored a Senate bill meant to make data centers pay for electrical-system upgrades, which Democrats blocked.
• Governor. Democrat Amy Acton proposes a conditional moratorium. Republican Vivek Ramaswamy wants hyperscale data centers to cover their electricity costs and meet air and water standards.
• 15th Congressional District. Democrat Don Leonard, challenging Republican incumbent Mike Carey, cites a poll he commissioned that found over 70% of likely voters want more say over data center locations and operations. That is a campaign-commissioned poll, so weigh it accordingly.

Nationally, TIME cites a May Gallup poll in which over 70% of voters oppose an AI data center in their area. Our write-up of the ABC, Washington Post and Ipsos poll found 66 percent oppose new data centers. TIME also reports $137.6 million in broadcast ad spending on data centers this cycle, with Democrats accounting for 77%, per AdImpact. Pew's list of top midterm issues does not include data centers on its own, so the issue is intense locally without topping national rankings.

A water droplet above a cooling basin, representing the water use limits in Ohio data center measures

What is confirmed and what is still open

What can a local vote do, and what can it not?

A charter amendment is the strongest tool a city has, because it binds the council itself. A moratorium is weaker. It expires, and councils can end it early. A referendum on a single project reverses one decision but does not set a rule for the next one.

Courts also matter. The Ohio Supreme Court already kept a Wilmington referendum off the ballot, as the Ohio Capital Journal reported. Expect lawsuits after the count about whether passed measures apply to projects that already hold permits. Companies also have options: they can move to a neighboring township, buy sites under existing zoning, or shift to states with no local vote requirement. That is why the effect on total AI capacity may be smaller than the vote totals suggest, while the effect on cost and delay in each town can be large.

The state of Texas shows the other path. TIME reports Gov. Greg Abbott imposed a temporary moratorium on new data centers pending an audit, a top-down pause rather than a local one. We covered the Texas side in OpenAI's letter to Abbott.

What this means if you build with AI

You will not see an Ohio ballot result on an invoice. But each blocked or delayed campus removes planned capacity, and the effects show up as rate limits, waitlists for regions and higher floor prices over a multi-year horizon. Practical steps:

1. Do not rely on one region or provider. Capacity shocks hit by region first.
2. Treat compute price cuts as not guaranteed. Our token price history shows prices fell as supply grew. Supply growth is exactly what these votes slow.
3. Use the smallest model that works. Efficiency is the hedge that does not depend on a new campus.
4. Watch the disclosure trend. If labs publish where compute is sited, expect more local challenges earlier in the process.

What to watch after the polls close

• Which measures pass and by how much. A narrow margin in Grove City reads differently from a landslide in Trenton.
• Whether lawsuits are filed against passed charter amendments.
• Whether Meta, Headwaters or others change plans in Piqua and Grove City.
• Whether other states copy the Ohio petition model for 2027 ballots.
• Whether state lawmakers respond with preemption or with the cost-sharing bills discussed in the Senate permitting bill coverage.

For the wider map of opposition, see our overview of the data center backlash, the Maine Senate race and the Arizona water fight.

Related reading

• Data center backlash is now a midterm issue: ten races
• OpenAI's reported "AI compute campus" rebrand
• Nvidia and OpenAI $250B backstop and Ohio's 10 GW site
• Amazon drops data center NDAs
• San Francisco data center moratorium
• Senate investigation: did hyperscalers mislead the public?
• xAI's Southaven home buyouts and the noise lawsuit

Details reflect reporting from TIME, WOSU, the Ohio Capital Journal and Spectrum News as of November 3, 2026. Counts and legal status of individual measures can change; results were not available at publication.