BOSTON--A state referendum to repeal rent control cannot take effect until the courts decide whether the conduct of the November vote was constitutional, a Suffolk Country appellate judge ruled yesterday.
Appeals Court Associate Justice Christopher J. Armstrong refused to lift a restraining order that bars Question 9 from taking effect.
Citing a "constellation of hardships" for thousands of tenants, the judge let stand a ban on Question 9's enactment, which would end rent control January 1.
But in a mixed victory for the state, Armstrong threw out the restraining order stalling enactment of four other ballot initiatives from the election.
Pushing ahead with the four referenda, Secretary of State Michael J. Connolly--who conducted the disputed vote--immediately submitted them to the Governor's Council for certification, a secretary to the council said yesterday. But they will not be certified until Gov. William F. Weld '66 gives final approval, the secretary said.
Armstrong's decision overturns most of the 10-day restraining order issued by Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Hiller B. Zobel '53 earlier this week.
But the controversy surrounding rent control is far from over.
While granting the bulk of Attorney General L. Scott Harshbarger '64's appeal of Zobel's ruling, Armstrong refused to give his opinion on whether the conduct of the referenda violated the state constitution.
The issue is almost certain to go to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). "The critical need in this extraordinary situation is to secure the quickest possible resolution of the challenge," Armstrong wrote in his eight-page decision.
The justice agreed with Zobel's ruling that a constitutional challenge to the election results "has a substantial likelihood, although not a certainty, of success."
Armstrong said he made rent control the exception because Question 9's implementation would harm tenants in Cambridge, Boston and Brookline--the three state communities with rent control laws.
"If the rent control laws remain in effect pending disposition of the court challenge, landlords and tenants will at least know where they stand legally," the justice wrote.
Certification of Question 9 would result in "a legal no-man's land of confusion where the authority of rent-control boards will be in doubt, as will numerous rent increase notices and, after January 1, eviction proceedings," Armstrong added.
Four plaintiffs are seeking to nullify the results of the November 8 referenda. They charged Secretary of Because of the length and complexity of the nine questions, Connolly provided separate paper summaries of the questions at polling sites throughout the state. But the plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of the state law passed in August that permitted Connolly to provide the paper summaries. Read more in News
