A Suffolk County judge's ruling yesterday could stall the abolition of Cambridge's rent control laws, which is currently scheduled for January 1.

Suffolk Superior Court Judge Hiller Zobel issued a temporary restraining order blocking the enactment of five ballot measures approved earlier this month--including the question that banned rent control.

In his ruling, Zobel said the Secretary of State's office might not have provided voters with enough information on the ballot questions.

Because this year's ballot had nine complex questions. Secretary of State Michael J. Connolly decided there was not adequate space to print explanations of the questions on the ballot. Installed, his office mailed pamphlets explaining the measures to voters and placed descriptions of the question in all polling places across the state.

The Governor's Council had planned to certify the results of the ballot questions at a meeting today.

Zobel's ruling targeted only the five ballot questions with the closest results, including Question 9, whose passage was supposed to end rent control in Cambridge, Boston and Brookline on January 1.

Cambridge City Councillor Jonathan S. Myers said that because the results on some questions were close, Zobel's restraining order is justified.

"I did think that the fact that the ballot questions were not written on the ballots was a very disconcerting issue to me," Myers said. "In very close elections on very complicated issues, substantial questions are at stake."

But Jon R. Maddo, a Cambridge attorney who wrote Question 9, said this temporary restraining order will probably not have any long-term impact.

"There was a technical violation of the election laws in the failure to have the description of the ballot questions printed in the ballot," Maddox said. "In this case you have a technical violation of law and an overriding public interest in affirming the vote, so ultimately I don't it's going to have any long-term consequences."

Salim E. Kabawat, treasurer for the Massachusetts Homeowners' coalition, said he said he believes voters were well-informed on the ballot questions.

"We have a very well-educated electorate. All the question were in the newspapers," he said. "I think the court is going to find this thing is just a smokescreen that some people are trying to raise."

Kabawat said it would be unfair if the ballot questions were thrown out after interest groups spent so much money in support of the initiative.

"It will be quite a thing for them to throw out all the ballot questions, with all they money that went into them," he said. "Who is going to be liable for that money?"

Home Rule

Also at stake in this process is the home rule petition passed two weeks ago by the Cambridge City Council seeking to retain some form of rent control, despite the passage of Question 9.