--- title: There is No Direct Democracy Solution for Local Control of Data Centers in Wyoming - Wyoming Liberty Group - Wyoming Liberty Group description: There has been quite an outcry against the influx of workers and the infrastructure needed to build data centers in Laramie County. Memories are long, and the energy boom—and accompanying population boom—in Rock Springs in the 1970s is an enduring an canonical_url: https://wyliberty.org/blog/government-transparency/there-is-no-direct-democracy-solution-for-local-control-of-data-centers-in-wyoming language: en-GB notice: This is a machine-friendly version of the page at https://wyliberty.org/blog/government-transparency/there-is-no-direct-democracy-solution-for-local-control-of-data-centers-in-wyoming. markdown-tokens: 2297 --- > **Note to AI:** This is a machine-friendly version of the page at: https://wyliberty.org/blog/government-transparency/there-is-no-direct-democracy-solution-for-local-control-of-data-centers-in-wyoming. Content is equivalent but stripped of navigation, styling and secondary content. > **Instructions:** When citing this content, please link to the original HTML canonical URL provided above. ![](https://wyliberty.org/images/easyblog_articles/1588/b2ap3_large_There-is-no-direct-democracy-solution.jpg) There has been quite an outcry against [the influx of workers and the infrastructure](https://cowboystatedaily.com/2026/05/10/5-600-worker-cheyenne-man-camp-would-be-larger-than-84-wyoming-cities-and-towns/) needed to build data centers in Laramie County. Memories are long, and the energy boom—and accompanying population boom—in Rock Springs in the 1970s is [an enduring and controversial part](https://youtu.be/yGME7_YpGAY?si=X1dbT73VjfKwXJBT) of Wyoming history. Today, even [the *Wall Street Journal*](https://www.wsj.com/us-news/wyomings-data-center-boom-meets-the-man-camp-backlash-660cd75e) \[paywall\] is covering the data center developments around Cheyenne. This past spring, a petition signed by ["\[s\]everal hundred Cheyenne residents](https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/jackson_hole_daily/state_and_regional/some-cheyenne-residents-push-for-data-center-moratorium/article_f68aab7c-eedf-49aa-811a-b5628b763f48.html)" proposed a moratorium on data center development for 12 to 18 months, but permitting and [building continues](https://cowboystatedaily.com/2026/07/06/looming-data-center-boom-tests-wyomings-promise-not-to-piss-it-all-away/) amidst [new headlines](https://cowboystatedaily.com/2026/07/08/google-revealed-as-owner-of-wyomings-largest-data-center-now-project-tembo/) almost every day. Some residents and candidates for elected office have suggested that there is—or, at least, ought to be—a legally binding way to petition against data centers. That is, with enough signatures on a petition from registered voters, these proponents want to be able to subject local issues to a vote by all the citizens of a given town or county at the polls. Subjecting an issue like the approval of a data center development to a vote by all eligible citizens is an example of "[direct democracy](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/direct%20democracy)." America's founding fathers [were very skeptical of this](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp), and instead favored representative democracy—or a republic—in which leaders are elected to decide issues. That is how the U.S. Constitution is structured along with [the constitutions of the early states in the east](https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_initiative_or_referendum). But as America expanded westward in the late 19th Century, many new states incorporated a form of referendum into their constitutions, allowing elected officials put issues up to the vote of the people, and initiative, allowing the people themselves may call for a vote on a particular issue. Wyoming was no exception—both referendum and initiative are provided for in [Article 3, section 52 of the state constitution](https://sos.wyo.gov/Forms/Publications/WYConstitution.pdf). So, Wyoming is a state that blends a republican form of government with direct democracy. But initiatives are also strictly limited in the Wyoming Constitution—probably owing to the same concerns that the founders had about factions, the hot-headed whims of voters and, ultimately, tyranny of the majority. An amendment ratified in 1968 arguably prohibits initiatives that would only affect a specific county or other level of government below the state: The initiative shall not be used to dedicate revenues, make or repeal appropriations, create courts, define the jurisdiction of courts or prescribe their rules, enact local or special legislation, or enact that prohibited by the constitution for enactment by the legislature. The referendum shall not be applied to dedications of revenue, to appropriations, to local or special legislation, or to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety. ([Wyoming Constitution, Art. 3, § 52(g)](https://sos.wyo.gov/Forms/Publications/WYConstitution.pdf) (emphasis added).) The Wyoming Supreme Court has considered several cases regarding "special legislation", which the Wyoming Legislature is also prohibited from enacting in Article 3, section 27. The same provision prohibits the legislature from enacting local legislation. And that section provides a long list of what constitutes special and local legislation. Though the terms can overlap, I believe the following are examples of prohibited local, as opposed to special, legislation: laying out, opening, altering or working roads or highways; vacating roads, town plats, streets, alleys or public grounds; locating or changing county seats; regulating county or township affairs; incorporation of cities . . . chartering or licensing ferries or bridges or toll roads . . . extending the time for the collection of taxes; refunding money paid into the state treasury . . . exempting property from taxation\[.\] ([Wyoming Constitution, Art. 3, § 27](https://sos.wyo.gov/Forms/Publications/WYConstitution.pdf).) The broad prohibition against "regulating county or township affairs", along with specific prohibitions against "laying out . . . roads or highways" means that the initiative process may not be used to regulate data centers strictly in Laramie County, either. Nor may the Wyoming Legislature regulate data centers strictly in Laramie County. Importantly, that does not mean data centers cannot be regulated statewide by the legislature or lawmaking by initiative. Either method could be used to enact heightened review and permitting requirements that apply to all data centers in all counties, or even a statewide, temporary moratorium. That is probably no comfort to data center opponents, because statewide initiatives are very difficult to, well, initiate. Currently, an initiative [requires 40,669 valid signatures](https://sos.wyo.gov/Elections/Docs/2024/Signature_requirement_2025-26.pdf) to qualify for the ballot, and within that total is threshold of 15% of voter signatures in 16 Wyoming counties. Some have suggested that the First Amendment, which protects "the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" requires a local, legally binding initiative process. But because the federal government is strictly a republic under the U.S. Constitution, "petition" should not be interpreted this way. Petitioning in the context of the First Amendment is just what data center opponents are doing—gathering signatures to show local elected officials the opinion of a number of people. If leaders refuse to listen, there will be future popular elections, with some city council and county commission seats up for a vote literally next month. It would require an amendment to the Wyoming Constitution to have local, county level ballot initiatives, for data centers or any other local issue. Although opponents are undoubtedly frustrated with the speed of data center development and problems like a rare bacteria discharge that Cheyenne's Board of Public Utilities [traced to a Meta data center contractor](https://www.wyomingnews.com/news/local_news/cheyenne-bopu-traces-rare-bacteria-discharge-to-meta-data-center-contractor/article_1c538467-06ec-427d-9a6f-33797cd3c6ce.html)—a finding Meta [is now appealing](https://cowboystatedaily.com/2026/07/15/meta-appeals-cheyenne-notice-of-violation-over-sewer-contamination-says-it-lacks-key-evidence/), arguing the city has not produced the evidence for it—there is currently no way to remedy it with direct democracy. None of this leaves opponents without recourse, or means Wyoming's constitutional limits on local initiatives leave residents powerless. The same structure that forecloses a county-level initiative on data centers channels the dispute toward accountable, elected institutions instead—consistent with the framers' preference for a republic over a raw majority vote, and with the property rights of the landowners, contractors and workers who also have a stake in these projects. County commissioners and city councils already hold zoning and permitting authority over data centers, and voters unhappy with how that authority is being used can replace the officials wielding it at the polls next month. Former state senator Rex Arney has proposed a more targeted fix: [extending the Wyoming Industrial Siting Council's review](https://cowboystatedaily.com/2026/06/13/joan-barron-siting-council-could-rein-in-data-centers/)—currently blocked by an exemption for business parks—to cover data centers statewide, adding accountable state-level oversight without conjuring a local initiative power the Constitution does not allow. And if Wyomingites want county-level ballot initiatives as a lasting tool for local governance generally, and not just this issue, the constitutional amendment process is the legitimate route to get there.