Alabama has this strange law that says unless a court has a specific statutory function on an election issue, that it has no jurisdiction in elections. As for primary ballots, those are supposed to be administered by the judge of probate, followed by the state executive committee ... HOWEVER, under a contested nomination, the executive committee is supposed to go to the circuit court for holding a hearing. The court then has the function of issuing subpoenas to witnesses and ordering the production of legal documents. Evidently Judge Helen either didn't understand this function or she thought it was too soon in the process for her to step in. IIUC, some of the elections rules changes were made around 2006 ... about the time Obama was starting to run for president. Coincidence?? Perhaps. But this doesn't have to be over. There are still plenty of challenges that can be filed in Alabama.
BTW, there is definitely a law in Alabama that requires the candidate to be legally qualified for office. If the judge of probate is giving the legal precedent of Minor v. Happersett's NBC definition, there's not a compelling legal precedent for the judge to qualify that ballot. Any freepers in Alabama need to jump on this. Start reviewing your state elections laws so you know the process.
Just to add to my previous comment, you can bet your house that Judge Helen, along with the Democrat party chairman and his lawyer, would suddenly insist that she has the proper jurisdiction, if the judge of probate or the executive committee excluded Obama from the primary ballot or general election ballot.
From what you’re saying, is ther merit to an appeal?