Armstrong decided to grant the state's appeal, stating that certification "will not, if allowed to occur, impair the plaintiffs' ability to maintain their challenge" on constitutional grounds.

The ruling permits the state to certify initiatives to keep a funding structure for student groups, raise gasoline-tax spending on state highways and limit the terms of elected officials.

Armstrong also allowed Question 5, the first of the initiatives to take effect, to be enacted, despite widespread opposition from blue-collar workers.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the measure, which would let stores open on Sunday mornings and some holidays, would pressure workers into putting in additional hours, even though its clauses are technically voluntary.

Armstrong disagreed. He said greater harm would result to retailers, who would lose profits at the height of the Christmas shopping season. And he said Massachusetts would be denied valuable sales-tax revenue if stores were kept closed.

But Ruth A. Bourquin, one of two attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said past precedents gave special permission for stores to open anyway during the two weekends before Christmas.

Both sides said they were pleased with Armstrong's decision.

"I'm pleased with Judge Armstrong's ruling, particularly his conclusion that the Secretary of State's argument on this issue is stronger than the lower court judge thought," said Ed Cafasso, spokesperson for the attorney general.

In a statement, Connolly said he was confident the courts will find the vote constitutional. He warned against efforts "to thwart the will of the voters."

But Bourquin interpreted Armstrong's ruling in a different light. She said both Zobel and Armstrong had recognized the legitimacy of their constitutional challenge.

"This is just about the narrow question of whether--pending a determination on the merit--the results will be certified or not," she said. "The fact that the [four] questions are certified doesn't mean they won't be ultimately struck down as unconstitutional."

But she disagreed with Armstrong's argument that the enactment of some questions would cause more harm than that of others.

"We think it's not appropriate to look at the questions individually," she said. "All the citizens and voters are irreparably harmed if laws that were inappropriately voted on take effect."

In addition to the constitutional challenge, Bourquin has filed affidavits charging that numerous voters did not receive the correct paper summaries of the ballot initiatives.

Carol R. Tobias, the Dorchester resident who is the leading plaintiff in the suit, said she is dissatisfied with the ruling.