"What the Jillson plaintiffs did in collecting signatures is not in keeping with what the [Massachusetts] Constitutional Convention of 1918 intended the initiative petition process to be," Nadler said.

The Current rules for getting a referendum on the state ballot were established during that convention.

Jillson admitted in an interview this week that some fraud was committed during the petition drive. But she said violations were inevitable in a process with so many signatures.

She said the homeowners coalition itself did not engage in fraudulent practices. Instead, signatures were obtained fraudulently by a few rogue National Voter Outreach workers who were being paid to collect them.

Home Rule

Localist passions run deep when the courtroom talk turns to rent control.

Cambridge rent-control supporters, in fact, say it is a city issue and is no business of the rest of the state.

Kaufman said he will be a plaintiff in a soon-to-be-filed lawsuit challenging the anti-rent control referendum as a violation of the home-rule guarantee embodied in the state's constitution.

Kaufman said his suit will be against the state attorney general, which certified the referendum as constitutional before the petition drive began.

"Cambridge should have the prerogative to determine its own character," Kaufman said.

Born, the newly-elected city councillor, said she also believes a statewide referendum on rent-control would be a violation of home rule.

"It's very much a Cambridge issue," Born said. "Cambridge is subject to pressures of development and real estate that no other place in the state is subject to."

The city, Born said, is in the way a victim of its own popularity. "So many people want to live in Cambridge," she said.

City Councillor Francis H. Duehay '55, who is a plaintiff in the pro-rent control suit against the secretary of state, said those supporting the referendum are "trying to undermine the authority of Cambridge."

But Jillson and other opponents of rent control claimed rent control is a state issue. The homeowners' coalition president points out, for example, that Cambridge forfeits $12 million a year in property taxes and Boston, which also employs rent-control, forfeits $17 million a year.