In a hearing at the Suffolk County Appeals Court today, state officials will attempt to overturn a lower court ruling to block enactment of five state ballot questions which passed last month.

Among the initiatives under review is Question 9, which would repeal controversial rent control laws in Cambridge, Boston and Brookline.

Defending the constitutionality of the state referendum, Attorney General L. Scott Harshbarger '64 filed an appeal yesterday in an effort to nullify a Monday decision by Suffolk Superior Court Judge Hiller B. Zobel, who found the conduct of the referendum unconstitutional.

Two attorneys representing tenant advocates and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union persuaded Zobel that Secretary of State Michael J. Connolly, who conducted the referendum, violated Article 48 of the state constitution by not printing summaries of the proposed laws on the ballot.

Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks will represent Connolly at a 2 p.m. hearing today before Associate Justice Christopher J. Armstrong.

Connolly had originally planned to submit all nine questions to the Governor's Council yesterday for certification, the first step to the implementation of the questions.

George F. Cronin, secretary to the Governor's Council, confirmed yesterday that only the four uncontested questions had been submitted for certification.

A law passed by the state legislature in September permitted Connolly to provide printed summaries of the ballot questions at polling sites across the state.

But that law is unconstitutional, said Burton A. Nadler, who is representing the four plaintiffs in the suit against Connolly.

"It certainly permits the secretary of state to [provide summaries], but the constitution is what prohibits it," Nadler said in an telephone interview yesterday. "And the constitution is what prevails."

Zobel agreed. "I take the constitutional provision to require that except as authorized in the Constitution itself, the fair and concise summary must be printed on the ballot," the judge wrote in his three-page ruling.

In the state's appeal, Harshberger argued that "the court abused its discretion" in issuing the restraining order.

He said the plaintiffs had failed to show that "imminent irreparable harm" would be caused by the certification of the referendum, or that the questions would take effect before their request for a court injunction could be heard.

"The Superior Court apparently concluded that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in establishing that a recently enacted statute governing the matter of voting...was unconstitutional," Harshbarger wrote in his appeal, referring to the September law.

"It is a determination not supported by established law," the attorney general added.

"It's extraordinary to grant a temporary restraining order when there's no showing of harm to any party," said Ed Cafasso, spokesperson for the attorney general.

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.

Connolly's spokesperson, Robert F. Moriarty, told The Crimson last month that extensive questioning of city and town election clerks resulted in no findings of irregularities.

"There's been a handful of problems," he said. "Those problems are more related to confusion--people coming in and realizing that the state ballot summaries would not be on the ballot."

Zobel's restraining order is a setback for supporters of Question 9. But anti-rent control leaders denounced the suit yesterday.

"It's a long shot, an act of desperation on the part of tenants," said Lenore M. Schloming '59, a board member of the Small Property Owners Association.

Schloming said most voters were well informed and prepared for the ballot, which had no summary or title for each question.

The temporary restraining order only applies to the five questions which create new law. Also affected are Question 3, which would change the funding structure for Mass Student PIRG; Question 4, a term-limits measure; Question 5, which would ease the state's "blue laws," and Question 8, which would raise gasoline-tax spending on highways