On Tuesday, November 3, voters in 38 communities across 10 states will confront a question once reserved for technology executives, utility planners, and local officials: How much say should citizens have over the massive data centers being built to power artificial intelligence?

At least 41 data center measures are on Election Day ballots. Ohio alone has 21. Some would prohibit or restrict projects. Others would permit development or advise local officials. Together, they form the clearest public test yet of America’s AI buildout.

I live in Prince William County, part of Northern Virginia, which Virginia’s Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) identifies as the world’s largest data center market. Neighboring Loudoun County says it has the highest concentration of data centers in the world. I have attended community meetings and listened to neighbors worry about what industrial-scale computing will mean for their homes.

This is my fifth column on data centers for The Washington Stand this year, and I have tried to treat both sides fairly. My position is straightforward: America must build the computing capacity it needs to remain prosperous, secure, and ahead of China. But national necessity does not give every developer a blank check or make every location suitable.

The Costs Are Real. So Are the Benefits.

Nobody wants high-voltage transmission lines crossing familiar landscapes, industrial buildings replacing farmland, constant equipment noise, or higher electric bills to finance infrastructure for commercial giants.

Those concerns have substance. JLARC found that data centers now cover their own cost of electric service, but that surging demand will likely raise costs for other customers.

The benefits are just as real. Data centers run the computing behind businesses, hospitals, banks, research, and artificial intelligence. Loudoun County reports that data centers produced $1.2 billion in property tax revenue in fiscal year 2026, 39% of the county’s overall budget. That revenue supports public services and has allowed Loudoun to cut tax rates on homes and vehicles.

The national security stakes are higher still. America is locked in a contest with communist China for technological leadership, and artificial intelligence now shapes intelligence analysis, cybersecurity, and military planning. A nation short of computing power will depend on others, and in this competition, dependence is a strategic vulnerability.

But national security cannot become an excuse for dismissing the legitimate concerns of American citizens. Nor should every commercial project win special treatment because its promoters invoke Beijing. Building everywhere is as reckless as building nowhere. America must build enough, in the right places, under terms that protect the people asked to live beside them.

5 Questions Worth Asking

Before casting a ballot, voters should ask five questions.

First, who pays for the power and grid upgrades? Meeting data centers’ demand can require new generating capacity, substations, and transmission lines. Will developers pay those costs, or will existing customers? President Trump’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge embraces the right principle: companies creating massive new electricity demand should pay for the power and infrastructure they require rather than shift those costs to ordinary households. The pledge is voluntary, so ask whether the company behind your local project has signed it.

Second, who pays if the projected demand never arrives? A developer may announce ambitious plans and then scale back, delay, or abandon the project. Communities should know what financial protections exist if a utility has already built infrastructure for a customer who no longer needs it. Local agreements should require what the president’s pledge asks: payment for contracted power whether or not it is used.

Third, what will the neighbors actually live with? Noise, water consumption, traffic, backup generators, air quality, and the sight of large industrial buildings deserve scrutiny. Residents deserve credible, independent impact studies, not promises from interested parties.

Fourth, what does the community receive after subsidies and incentives are counted? Tax revenue, construction work, permanent jobs, and public-infrastructure improvements are legitimate benefits, but officials should separate documented commitments from optimistic projections and report the net figure.

Fifth, who enforces the promises after the ribbon-cutting? Public hearings matter, but so do enforceable operating conditions, independent monitoring, and a clear complaint process. Citizens should know who can intervene when a facility breaks its commitments.

Finally, read the ballot itself. A temporary moratorium is not a permanent ban, and an advisory question binds no one. Citizens should know what authority their vote carries.

A Responsibility Larger than Our Neighborhood

The harder question is national: If every community rejects the infrastructure that advanced computing requires, where will America build it?

American technological leadership requires physical infrastructure, not just promising software.

Yet developers must recognize that a national need does not make every location appropriate. Some communities have suitable industrial land, dependable power, available water, and room for additional demand. Others do not. Responsible development means telling the difference.

No single level of government can answer this question alone. Washington carries responsibility for national security and technological leadership. States regulate electric utilities and must protect ratepayers. Local governments know the roads, water systems, and neighborhoods a project affects. National need deserves weight, but it should not erase local self-government. Nor can local authority become a universal veto on infrastructure the country needs.

What Scripture Requires of Christians

Christians have an additional standard. Genesis 2:15 says God placed man in the garden “to work it and keep it” (ESV). Those two commands belong together. To work the garden is to cultivate and build. To keep it is to guard what God has entrusted to us. Faithful stewardship requires both.

Philippians 2:4 adds another test: “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others” (ESV). The homeowner cannot consider only his property value, the developer only his return, or the official only tax revenue. Each must ask who benefits, who bears the burden, and whether the arrangement is honest and just.

Tuesday’s ballot tests whether Americans can build what the nation needs without forcing particular communities to bear disproportionate costs.

America needs computing power. It also needs citizens willing to demand honest numbers, fair costs, appropriate locations, and enforceable promises. Christians should insist on both technological progress and responsible stewardship. Ask the five questions. Then vote with prudence, fairness, and concern for the neighbor who will still be living there long after Election Day.