A Democratic Party sub-committee’s ruling that Yusuf Salaam rightfully won the Democratic nomination for House District 67 was appealed in the 11th hour Tuesday night.

Cassandra Smith, one of the original contestants of the election that saw Salaam defeat LaTosha Brown by 138 votes, filed an appeal that claims the Democratic Party will use &uot;totalitarian&uot; practices if it does not overturn Salaam’s victory.

Apparently, an attorney for the firm of Chestnut, Sanders, Sanders, Pettway, Campbell and Albright drafted the appeal. However, that attorney’s name was not printed and was unreadable on the appeal.

Attorneys for Salaam were quick to write a response to Smith’s appeal.

What was more shocking to Kelly is that LaTosha Brown and contestants April and Clifford Albright did not sign the appeal.

They are &uot;conspicuously absent from this appeal, which is brought only in the name of Cassandra Smith, an elector,&uot; Kelly said.

Pitts took Smith’s appeal a bit further.

According to Smith’s appeal, the Democratic sub-committee’s ruling is not supported by substantial evidence, is void as a matter of law, and &uot;amounts to a miscarriage of justice and denial of due process.&uot;

Among her other accusations, Smith said the sub-committee chairman, Terry Davis, ended the hearing &uot;apparently to meet the deadline set by Montgomery County [Circuit] Judge [Charles] Price in a corresponding case, but refused to use its judicial powers to compel over 300 witnesses, duly subpoenaed by Contestant, to testify about their alleged illegal votes.&uot;

Smith said the sub-committee also did not consider the &uot;undisputed statistical proof of illegal voting by Contestants’ expert…&uot;

Kelly and Pitts said that assumption is ludicrous.

In the sub-committee’s ruling, they said even if Whitman’s &uot;estimations&uot; had been accepted, &uot;the Contestants would not reach the requisite number of votes to change the outcome of the election.&uot;

In her appeal, Smith went on to say the sub-committee &uot;was unduly biased and affected by the local media’s sympathy and support for non-appearing witnesses to the detriment of Contestant.&uot;

According to Smith, a story published about a process server who delivered a subpoena to Cecil Williamson in church was a sympathetic story that influenced the sub-committee’s decision.

Kelly and Pitts had a simple statement for that: &uot;There is no evidence to support this allegation.&uot;

Once Kelly and Pitts file their response to Smith’s appeal, the Alabama Democratic Party Executive Committee will decide whether to hear the appeal.

Meanwhile, Salaam said he’s not interested in discussing the actions taken by Brown’s supporter.

On Saturday, Aug. 17, the Democratic sub-committee issued its decision that Salaam was the winner of the District 67 Democratic Primary. Democratic Party bylaws say an appeal must be filed within 10 days of the appeal and Tuesday was the deadline for that appeal.