Reviewed ballot results

57 reviewed measure records · 53 current result observations · 5 current certified observations.

Recorded lifecycles: 1 litigated; 3 scheduled; 1 unknown; 52 voted. These are measure records, not counts of voted contests.

This is a reviewed subset, not a complete election census. Each result-table row is one current result observation; multiple observations for a measure remain separate. Unknown categories are not zero.

Sector attribution remains unresolved for 3 measures; these records are included in the overall measure count.

Reporting scope distinguishes whole-jurisdiction observations from named parts. Missing legacy scope is not assumed to cover the whole electorate; observations are not summed.

Yes-vote direction follows the question wording. Advisory results express voter sentiment; they do not by themselves enact a restriction or authorize a project.

Additional source labels and totals remain separate from blanks, valid votes and ballots cast. - Americus, KS — undesignated: Total Votes Cast: 401 (Named city question row); Contest Totals: 411 (Named city question row). - Emporia, KS — Question 2: Total Votes Cast: 7237 (Named city question row); Contest Totals: 7338 (Named city question row). - Emporia, KS — Question 3: Total Votes Cast: 7184 (Named city question row); Contest Totals: 7338 (Named city question row). - Brownfield, ME — Article 1: ballots counted: 862 (Question 1 tally-sheet declaration). - Freedom, ME — Article 3: VOIDS: 24 (unmapped category); circled total: 470 (Article 3 question table). - Harwood, ND — Home Rule Charter Amendment — Article X Public Protection and Responsible Municipal Decision-Making: Total Votes: 430 (City of Harwood Home Rule Charter Amendment; state election-night CassCounty municipal view). - Boulder City, NV — Question 1: Total: 7011 (Question1response total, not ballots cast or county turnout.). - Conneaut, OH — Issue 10: Total Votes Cast: 3519 (10 Conn City Charter Amend); Contest Totals: 3585 (10 Conn City Charter Amend). - Defiance, OH — Proposed Charter Amendment - Prohibition of a Data Center: Total Votes: 5906 (City of Defiance - Proposed Charter Amendment - Prohibition of a Data Center). - Granville, OH — Charter Amendment - Data Centers: Total Votes Cast: 2444 (Village of Granville - Charter Amendment - Data Centers). - Hubbard, OH — Proposed Ordinance Data Centers: Total Votes Cast: 3424 (Hubbard City Proposed Ordinance Data Centers). - Monroe Township, OH — Proposed Zoning Plan: Total Votes: 248 (Township of Monroe Proposed Zoning Plan). - Monroeville, OH — Data Center Advisory Question: Total: 449 (Monroeville Village Data Center Advisory Question). - Pataskala, OH — Prohibiting of a Data Center: Total Votes Cast: 7359 (City of Pataskala - Charter Amendment - Data Centers). - Perry, OH — Issue 16: Total Votes Cast: 1086 (16 Perry Village Proposed Ordinance). - Piqua, OH — Charter Amendment — Data Centers: Total: 6088 (Piqua City Charter Amendment - Data Centers). - Sprigg Township, OH — Proposed Zoning Plan: Total Votes: 627 (Township of Sprigg Proposed Zoning Plan). - Sunbury, OH — Prohibition of Construction of a Data Center: Total Votes: 3572 (City of Sunbury - Proposed Charter Amendment). - Upper Sandusky, OH — Charter Amendment Prohibition of a Data Center: Total Votes Cast: 2461 (Charter Amendment Prohibition of a Data Center City of Upper Sandusky). - Urbana, OH — Urbana City Charter Amendment - Data Centers: Total: 3855 (Urbana City Charter Amendment - Data Centers). - Wilmington, OH — O-26-06: Total: 3611 (Wilmington Referendum Ordinance O-26-06). - Wilmington, OH — O-26-04: Total: 3624 (Wilmington Referendum Ordinance O-26-04). - Wilmington, OH — O-26-07: Total: 3625 (Wilmington Referendum Ordinance O-26-07). - Wilmington, OH — O-26-05: Total: 3618 (Wilmington Referendum Ordinance O-26-05). - Port Washington, WI — Tax Incremental District Voter Approval Referendum: Total Votes: 4081 (Referendum Question - C.Port Washington); Times Cast: 4201 (Named City of PortWashington referendum; actual meaning not generalized to blank/under/over categories). - Wrightstown, WI — Municipal Infrastructure and Data-Center Development Advisory Referendum: Total Votes Cast: 1005 (Brown County portion of Wrightstown referendum only; no full-village aggregate accepted); Contest Totals: 1048 (BrownCounty portion, includes43undervotes and0overvotes. Not silently re-labelled village ballots; source percentage denominator differs from yes/no.). - Wrightstown, WI — Municipal Infrastructure and Data-Center Development Advisory Referendum: Total Votes Cast: 179 (OutagamieCounty portion of Wrightstown referendum only; separate from ContestTotals194 and Brown1005).

Reviewed accounting discrepancies below retain source values without filling unknown vote categories. - Joliet Township, IL — DATA CENTER CONSTRUCTION: source accounting difference 5; 18601 - (3800 + 14207 + 32 + 557) = 5. Unresolved source arithmetic; not assigned to blank or other votes.

5 reviewed measures have no current result observation; missing vote observations alone do not establish defeat or qualification status.

Linked restriction records

Relationship acceptance is separate from instrument status. A proposes link does not establish enactment or current force; unknown dates remain unknown.

Reported outcomes and certification are separate from calculated passage rules, operative dates and legal force. A reported approval does not automatically add an in-force legacy moratorium. See scope and interpretation for unresolved legal implementation.

64 result observations are retained, including explicitly superseded history. This view excludes superseded observations without deleting them. Classification or provenance corrections can add a successor without new votes or a new retrieval; consult source acquisition times and the result value_methods notes.

Sources for reported outcomes

• Monterey Park: reported-outcome source.
• Bethel: reported-outcome source.
• Eliot: reported-outcome source.
• Sabattus: reported-outcome source.

Pinned canonical snapshot: 8d1a4df738c50cb71a066c1dc755019f77c94c62fb089cad8a7a9153559f79bb. Source acquisition times and result review-time explanations remain in the records; this generation is not a renewed current-force check.

Canonical publication protocol · Raw reviewed tables