Cafasso said today's effort is only to void the restraining order, not to defend the constitutionality of the vote. The Suffolk County Superior Court must still hold a hearing on the plaintiffs' request for an injunction voiding the results of the vote, Cafasso said.

But Nadler said he is confident the Appeals Court will find the September measure to be unconstitutional.

"The argument the attorney general makes is hollow," said Nadler, an election-law specialist. "They're basically saying they have discretion to do whatever they want."

In a 1951 case, Sears v. Treasurer and Receiver General, the state threw out election results because the summaries provided were judged to be confusing, Nadler said. Zobel referred to the Sears case in his Monday ruling.

Ruth A. Bourquin, the other attorney in the case, did not return messages left with her office yesterday.

Reports of Irregularities

In an interview yesterday, Carol R. Tobias, a Dorchester resident who filed the lawsuit against Connolly, said the referendum vote had contained numerous irregularities.

Tobias said she was handed an editorial from the Boston Herald instead of the summary provided by the attorney general--the only summary which could legally be given to voters.

"I saw the secretary of state [summary] and I started to pick it up, and I was handed instead a column from the Herald," she said. "The poll worker said it was lot easier to read. It was an editorial column telling people how to vote."

Tobias, who said she voted at 4 p.m. that day, said her husband had received the same column when he voted at 8 a.m.

Tobias said her lawsuit is not motivated by politics but by fairness.

"The ballot questions should be on the ballot, pure and simple," she said. "If there are a lot of them, it's a little more work figuring out how to do it, but that's no excuse for not doing it."

Tobias said she hopes the court will order a new election on the questions.

"I don't see any other alternative other than voting again with the questions on the ballot," said the 43-year-old employee of the Boston University School of Public Health.

Under state law, ballot questions presented unconstitutionally must undergo a revote at the next election.