Reviewed ballot records: scope and interpretation

The generated results view follows the pinned canonical publication. It is a reviewed subset, not the complete November election census. Each result-table row is a current result observation, and multiple observations of one measure remain separate. A separate no-result table lists proposals and other measure records with their recorded lifecycle, held or intended election date, and source-qualified scope. An intended election is not proof of ballot appearance. Blank, other-vote and turnout categories are not filled with zero when the source omits them.

The November 5 initial cohorts cover Eliot Question 5 and Sabattus's Data Center Moratorium question at the November 3, 2026 elections. Both questions ask enactment of a temporary ordinance. Their bindingness and restrictive yes direction describe the proposed mechanism; neither is a finding of present enforceability. Official Eliot sample ballot, official Sabattus sample ballot.

The signed returns certify the respective counts. Sabattus's clerk certifies on November 4; the return omits total ballots and blank votes. Eliot's moderator return is dated November 3 and reports blanks and total ballots separately. Certification of election results remains distinct from certification or implementation of an ordinance. Eliot return, PDF page 3, Sabattus clerk return.

A separate secondary report supplies reported approval for both questions. The canonical records distinguish that reported outcome from a calculated passage rule. No denominator, threshold or legal passage rule is invented from vote arithmetic. The earlier Eliot official-source-only observation remains unchanged; an explicit successor adds the reported approval. Supersession removes the earlier observation from the current view, not from history. Secondary approval report.

Eliot's proposed ordinance specifies 180 days from effectiveness and an accessory server-equipment exception. Paragraph 5 refers both to voter enactment and seven days after adoption. Sabattus's question summarizes a nominal May 2, 2027 endpoint (180 days), subject to extension or repeal by municipal officers; its operative mechanism/definition, applicability and effective-date clauses require ordinance review. The question summary is not substituted for executed operative text. Eliot official proposed text.

Canterbury Article 4 is an earlier measure at the March 10, 2026 annual town election. Its question proposes a permanent all-zone zoning prohibition, not a temporary moratorium. The town-posted results show 322 yes and 63 no; the derived 385 is only yes plus no, not ballots cast. The clerk's true-copy attestation is not treated as a dated certification. Bindingness, passage rule, outcome and operative legal effect remain unresolved. The proposed definition includes commercial/third-party computing and cryptocurrency facilities, with on-site business/institutional and residential accessory-equipment exclusions. Official Canterbury results, official proposed Article 4 text.

Nottingham's September 8, 2026 special-election question proposes a twelve-month permitting pause. The town-posted marked document retains a SAMPLE BALLOT heading and shows 1,335 yes / 143 no. The derived 1,478 is only yes plus no; certification and outcome remain unknown. Proposed text anchors twelve calendar months to adoption, with earlier legislative-body repeal. Its embedded/accessory computing exclusion requires all three conditions: the specified 25% floor-area cap, on-site enterprise service without primarily providing third-party services, and no leasing of data services to third parties. Proposal signatures record Planning Board support on July 1, not voter enactment. Bindingness, formal referral, operative adoption and later legal force remain unresolved. Official Nottingham marked ballot, official proposed ordinance.

Wiscasset's November 3 Question 2 asks enactment of Article X Miscellaneous, X-19 Data Center Moratorium; the signed warrant numbers it Article 4. The town's unofficial results show 1,363 yes / 712 no. Blanks and question-specific ballots cast remain unknown; the broader election page's total is not assigned to this question. Proposed text specifies six calendar months following enactment, retroactive coverage for applications filed on or after November 3, and conditional extensions of at most 180 days each. Those terms do not establish an operative adoption date, certified outcome or current legal force. Official Wiscasset sample ballot, unofficial results, proposed ordinance text.

North Berwick's November 3 Question 2 asks enactment of a zoning amendment to define and prohibit data centers. Its signed clerk return certifies 2,114 yes / 582 no on November 3; blanks and ballots cast remain unknown. Proposed text requires specified primary computing uses and at least 25,000 square feet of aggregate defined Data Center Area, including associated impervious surfaces. Accessory server/IT infrastructure is excluded below the specified aggregate threshold. The proposed land-use table marks NO in all eleven listed district columns. Result certification does not establish its operative legal interval. Official North Berwick ballot, signed results, proposed definition and table, pages 20–21.

Wells's November 3 Article 5 asks enactment of a retroactive data-center moratorium and incorporates warrant Appendix 1. The clerk certificate records 5,818 yes / 1,282 no / 459 blanks, signed November 4. Total ballots cast remains unknown. The submitted proposal uses at least 100,000 square feet aggregate defined Data Center Area, including associated impervious surfaces. Its 180-day term runs from June 16 applicability, while effectiveness is conditioned on Town Meeting enactment. These clauses do not establish a new 180-day November term or prove the current legal interval. A separate agenda draft leaves its threshold blank; it is not substituted for the warrant version. Official Wells warrant, signed results.

Peru's town-hosted November 3 results image labels Article 2 Data Center Moratorium and reports 578 yes / 182 no. Exact ballot wording and yes-vote direction remain unresolved. The separate 774 Total Voters is not assigned as a question-specific denominator; blanks and certification remain unknown. Proposed text specifies a 180-day pause from effectiveness, an exception for routine upgrades to existing telecommunications facilities, and possible later legislative repeal/extension/replacement. September proposal signatures do not establish voter enactment or an operative interval. Official Peru result image, pre-election proposal notice, proposed ordinance.

Brownfield's November 3 warrant Article 1 asks approval of a temporary moratorium; the town tally labels it Question 1 and shows 671 yes / 191 no. Its separate 862 ballots-counted declaration is preserved with its source label and scope, without assigning a ballots-cast denominator. Certification and blanks remain unknown. Proposed text uses at least 5,000 square feet aggregate defined area and literal less-than 250 kW computing / less-than 1 MW service wording, whose legal application remains unresolved. The proposed 180 days run from September 16 applicability, distinct from Town Meeting adoption/effectiveness. Official Brownfield warrant, tally, proposed ordinance.

Freedom's source-qualified tally photograph identifies November 3 Article 3, asking adoption of the Data Center Moratorium Ordinance. It shows 331 yes / 115 no, plus VOIDS 24 and a circled 470 total. The latter observations remain separate from standard vote categories and denominators. The public account is named Freedom Town Office, but affiliation and certification have not been independently authenticated. The town-linked draft has blank adoption/applicability dates and no operative expiration clause; its at-least-180-day preamble study need is not an accepted term. Passage outcome and current legal force remain unresolved. Source tally post, official town-linked draft.

Alhambra, California, Measure DB retains the November 5 county snapshot of 15,237 yes / 3,132 no, explicitly superseding the older 13,314 / 2,889 observation. Certification, reporting completeness and final passage outcome remain unknown. The actual question adopts an ordinance affirming the existing council ban; a failed measure would leave that council ban in place, according to the city attorney. The June 22 predecessor adoption and July 27 election referral remain separate acts. Unsigned Word attachments supply proposed clauses, not certified voter enactment. The accessory exclusion requires both incidental use and strict support of on-site operations; no acreage threshold is asserted for Alhambra. County returns, scoped review.

Monterey Park, California, Measure NDC is the earlier June 2 election, with certified 10,388 yes / 1,372 no and source-reported approval. Its contest-labelled canvass supplies 12,381 ballots cast and 32,781 registrations; the difference from yes/no is not assigned to blanks or under/overvotes. The result observation uses the June 30 city-clerk certification phase, while source claims retain June 26 county certification, July 1 council declaration and signed Ordinance 2280 dated July 2 separately. The land-based one-acre definition and conjunctive under-one-acre accessory/incidental exclusion remain explicit. The ten-day Council-certification rule, implementation and current force remain unresolved. Ordinance 2280 is not silently merged with council Ordinance 2278 or prior moratoria 2272/2274. Certification and ordinance packet, publication scope.

Four Madison County, Illinois, township questions ask whether construction and operation of new data centers should be permitted. The official sheet places Chouteau, Granite City, Nameoki and Venice Townships under an ADVISORY heading. A yes vote favors permission, so the records use advisory bindingness and a facilitating yes direction. The public results view displays these distinctions; the larger no counts do not become enacted prohibitions. Granite City Township is not the City of Granite City. Official question sheet.

The source-reported current yes/no counts are Chouteau 365/1,817, Granite City 1,959/5,703, Nameoki 602/2,117 and Venice 311/978. Earlier and current official CSV observations remain separate, with explicit supersession even though the member bytes/counts match. The named-contest ballot and registration columns are retained without deriving blank or under/overvotes. Full precinct reporting does not establish certification or complete ballot accounting. Formal placement, outcomes, certification and later government actions remain open. The source review also retains an additional wind/solar zoning-control lead outside the frozen seed denominator; its electorate and policy direction need further review. Versioned official report, publication scope.

No current legal-force restriction, instrument event or measure/instrument link has been accepted in these initial cohorts, and their publication does not add active legacy moratorium rows. Other jurisdictions, earlier and future elections, legal implementation, passage rules and the full freshness accounting remain work in progress.

Canonical tables are available at data/expanded/<table>.jsonl in a checkout. Resolve the directory once when reading several tables. The immutable first Eliot snapshot and Sabattus/result-update snapshot preserve the exact tables, source versions and publication plans. Visual source review is not a claim of full-document extraction coverage.

The Sabattus review packet and publication receipt record local publication. The replay receipt and offline consistency check validate retained publication behavior; they do not reacquire sources or establish current legal force. GitHub release, full public exports, remaining measures and consumer updates retain the separate release gates.

Wilmington proposed Chapter 1161 initiative

This distinct initiative is recorded with a source-qualified litigated lifecycle and no result observation. The recovered Ohio Supreme Court slip opinion reports that the board refused certification for the intended November 3 election on August 12, reaffirmed that decision on August 26, and that the court denied mandamus on September 18. The opinion is subject to formal revision. Original proposal and administrative instruments, later case and election history, and current status remain unreviewed. This is neither one of Wilmington's four voted parcel referendums nor a defeated voted measure or an operative restriction. Official slip opinion, 2026-Ohio-3663.

The expanded total includes proposal histories: 49 records have the voted lifecycle, three are scheduled or called and one is litigated. Result observations remain separate, including partial-jurisdiction observations. The intended-election foreign key and an elapsed date do not establish ballot appearance.

Clarksville conditional referendum calls

The reviewed proposals separately identify SF ARK1 Ordinance 26-1008 and HATCHBO Ordinance 26-1007. Their signed September 28 referrals call December 1, 2026 with December 8 as an alternate if the first date is unlawful. Final dates and ballots remain unconfirmed. Both are future proposals with unknown date bounds and original conditional text; a provisionally shared intended-election link does not prove joint final administration or actual appearance. Proposed petition voting direction remains a source observation; final referendum effect, bindingness and development-relative direction are unresolved. Neither bond authorization ceiling establishes spending, a project approval or an operative restriction.

Classification corrections and observation clocks

A result successor may correct the interpretation of an existing source. Trenton's unofficial classification correction preserves the original report, vote values and recorded acquisition time. Its later observed_at identifies the classification review; the per-field value_methods note explains that distinction in JSONL and CSV. The additional observation and text-derivation source are retained versions, not another election, new votes, a newly certified result or a new retrieval. Consult the source's recorded retrieved_at, underlying acquisition metadata and field provenance separately from a correction's review time.