See our previous post on state-level climate ballot initiatives.

A total of 41 ballot initiatives across 13 states will be decided related to prohibiting or restricting data center construction in many different municipalities. Already this year, voters in Canterbury and Nottingham, N.H.; Wrightstown and Port Washington, Wisc.; Monetary Park, Calif.; and Augusta, Mich. have passed measures to ban data center development in their municipality or otherwise impede construction through restrictions and conditions. 

Ann Arbor, Establish Michigan Municipal Utility Initiative: A ‘Yes’ vote on this initiative would require Ann Arbor “to establish a municipal electric utility governed by a nine-member board..” And would “require the utility board to adopt policies to ‘enable a just transition for workers,’ ‘strive to quickly end reliance on fossil fuels,’ ‘focus on sustainable alternatives,’ ‘seek new opportunities for producing and distributing renewable energy,’ and ‘promote ratepayer equity in its operations.’”

Dissatisfaction with DTE’s reliability and affordability shaped the signature-gathering effort by Ann Arbor for Public Power. DTE is fighting the initiative, which wouldn’t transfer Ann Arbor to a publicly-owned utility overnight but would set up a process for doing so by 2028. Advocates of the initiative cite achieving Ann Arbor’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2030 as the main purpose, arguing that the “municipal utility would give local residents more power over the speed of the city’s transition to renewable energy.”

Los Angeles Charter Amendment PRK: A majority of Los Angeles voters approving Amendment PRK would double the funding for the Parks and Recreation Department. Climate orgs like the Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club have endorsed the amendment, and proponents argue that LA has one of the most under-resourced park systems of any major city nationally, and note that in “communities like Pacoima and South LA  where industrial use, extreme heat, and limited access to green space intersect, residents have up to 78% less park acreage per capita than wealthier parts of the city.” 

McFarland, California CAFO Initiatives: Measures O and P deal with concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in the Kern County municipality of McFarland. Nationwide, CAFOs pose environmental justice challenges, as they are disproportionately located in economically disadvantaged communities like McFarland. They also are major sources of greenhouse gas pollution. A ‘Yes’ vote on Measure O would allow an existing dairy CAFO in McFarland to continue operating, whereas a ‘Yes’ vote on Measure P would allow the city council to enact regulations over CAFOs. 

San Francisco Proposition B, Create a Municipal Banking Corporation and Public Bank Amendment: Prop B would create a municipal finance corporation and public bank. In a Climate & Community Institute (CCI) brief arguing in favor of the idea, scholars situate the proposition within context of an increasingly economically and racially unequal San Francisco, where “housing affordability deteriorated further, with a growing share of renters burdened by housing costs and new cost pressures stemming from the city’s growing corporate AI sector” and the city “needs substantial climate-related investments—including funding for emissions reductions, clean energy infrastructure, climate adaptation, and sea-level-rise resilience—all while confronting increased fiscal constraints and reduced support from the federal government.”

CCI’s brief estimates a public bank would stimulate substantial housing investments and “$331 million in clean energy loans, enough to support roughly 237 megawatts of rooftop solar capacity.”

Santa Cruz, California Measure D, Require Voter Approval for Deep-Sea Mining Land Use Changes: A ‘Yes’ vote on Measure D extends Santa Cruz’s existing prohibition on offshore oil drilling without voter approval to any deep-sea mining facilities. Santa Cruz Climate Action Network, Sierra Club, and Citizens’ Climate Lobby all support Measure D because they say the update to the county’s ballot initiative is needed to “continue to ensure a vote of the people would be needed before offshore oil and deep-sea mining industries are allowed to build onshore infrastructure to support their offshore extractive activities.”

Solano County, California Measure E, Commercial Wind Turbine Rate Business License Tax: A ‘Yes’ vote on Measure would increase “taxes on commercial wind turbines and creates new taxes on commercial solar and battery systems, natural gas extraction and data centers in unincorporated Solano County.” Although opponents argue that the taxes would discourage investment in clean energy, the taxes are structured to be higher on gas than on clean energy sources. Cassandra James, one of two county supervisors supporting the measure, is a Democrat who was endorsed by the Sierra Club in her campaign for supervisor. 

There are dozens of local initiatives to issue bonds, approve or extend sales taxes, or otherwise fund transportation. Many of these measures reflect a nationwide, long-term pattern: funds for highway and road repairs tend to greatly outweigh funds for public transit, at about an 80-20 ratio.

By and large, bond measures and sales tax measures from Fresno and Riverside County, California to Charlotte, North Carolina reflect this bias. A ‘Yes’ vote on a Charleston County, South Carolina transit initiative would extend an existing tax to fund $4.25 billion in transit investments over the next 25 years, though nearly 64% of the funding would go toward road improvements rather than public transit. 

There are a few exceptions that seem like meaningful expansions of public transit, such as:

Colorado Counties’ Proposition 7A: Voters in 13 counties throughout Colorado’s Front Range Passenger Rail District, which includes Denver, Colorado Springs, and Pueblo, will be asked to support a 0.33% sales tax increase to generate an annual $295 million in revenue for expanded train service between the cities. In endorsing the proposition, the Boulder Daily Camera emphasized that “In our changing world with our changing needs and our changing climate, we need to start investing in a future that is less defined by cars.”

Lawrence, Kansas Sales Tax Transit Initiative: A ‘Yes’ vote on the sales tax would institute a sales tax increase and direct the revenue toward expanded transit initiatives. 

Pierce County, Washington Proposition 1: A ‘Yes’ vote on Proposition 1 would institute a 0.3% sales tax increase and direct the revenue toward expanded bus service. 

San Francisco Bay Area Regional Transit Measure: There are several climate-relevant ballot initiatives on San Francisco’s ballot. The Regional Transit Measure across several Bay Area counties would issue “ a sales tax for a period of 14 years to fund public transportation systems in the region, including BART, Muni, Caltrain, AC Transit, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, San Francisco Bay Ferry, and Golden Gate Transit.” 

San Francisco Proposition G: Prop G resurrects the question of whether to reinstate cars on the Great Upper Highway, a 2-mile stretch near Golden Gate Park. San Francisco voters expressed their support for the car-free Sunset Dunes Park by approving Proposition K in 2024, but voters in the Richmond neighborhood District 4 recalled their supervisor last year over his support for it, and efforts to return cars to the highway have remained a disruptive force in San Francisco politics. The San Francisco Republican Party and Richmond District Democratic Club support Prop G, while the Sierra Club, San Francisco LCV, and San Francisco Climate Emergency Coalition oppose it. 

Alameda County Measure L: A ‘Yes’ vote on Measure L would authorize $300 million in bonds to “prepare for emergencies, earthquakes and sea-level rise.”

Berkeley Measure U: A ‘Yes’ vote on Measure U would authorize $300 million in bonds to support “fire stations, emergency response facilities, parks, recreation facilities, other public infrastructure, and climate resiliency.”

San Mateo County, California Measure L: A ‘Yes’ vote supports “amending the San Mateo County Charter to state that long-term resilience against extreme weather events is a county priority.”

St. Petersburg, Florida Question 1: A simple majority voting ‘Yes’ on Question 1 would authorize “$600 million in bonds for storm resilience improvements, such as flood protection, stormwater pump stations, drainage infrastructure, wastewater collection and treatment facilities, drinking water distribution and supply facilities.” Pinellas County officials have sought a legal opinion from legally embattled state attorney general James Uthmeier over how much “freedom city officials” would have to allocated the funds, meant to be earmarked for “hardening stormwater, wastewater, and drinking water systems…against stronger storms and sea level rise.”