ColumnsPunishing ‘Faithless’ Electors: The Case Of Chiafalo Vs. Washington Of The US Supreme Court Jana Kalyan Das, Sandeep Devashish Das & Nina Dogra30 Nov 2020 4:30 AMShare This – xIn a significant development touching upon the voting behavior of presidential electors the American Supreme Court has come down heavily on ‘faithless’ electors of the electoral college which elects the American President. The American President, like the Indian President, is not directly elected by the people but is indirectly elected by electors of an electoral college constituted…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginIn a significant development touching upon the voting behavior of presidential electors the American Supreme Court has come down heavily on ‘faithless’ electors of the electoral college which elects the American President. The American President, like the Indian President, is not directly elected by the people but is indirectly elected by electors of an electoral college constituted in terms of Article II section 1 of the US Constitution. The 2016 Presidential election in USA had witnessed a spate of faithless voting by some electors in few states. Such deviant voting behavior using personal discretion on the part of electors and voting independently, unfettered by the dictates of their parties as well as the popular mandate, had kicked in a constitutional controversy leading to filing of suits. The various State courts rendered conflicting judgments in these suits and there was need for the highest court to address the legal question and give the issue a quietus. On 6th July 2020 the American Supreme Court therefore, took upon itself the onerous task of disciplining rogue, wayward and faithless electors of the Presidential Electoral College who vote against their party’s nominees and the people’s choice in the state. Bedeviled by a puritan judicial conscience and transcending all liberal and conservative ideological affiliations all the judges felt it imperative to allow the states the power to prevent repetition of the mischief of the 2016 presidential election in future by taking appropriate remedial measures as they may deem fit and proper. In a rare display of unanimity on a political question the American Supreme Court in the recent case of Chiafalo Vs. Washington (591 US – 2020) has held that a state is legally competent to Constitutionally put to effect and take punitive measures to enforce a Presidential elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee and the choice of the state’s voters for president.In the facts of the case three Washington Electors, Peter Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther John (the Electors) belonging to the Democratic Party, in keeping with the legal requirements of the state law which had been upheld by the American Supreme Court in the year 1952 in the case of Ray Vs. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952) had taken a pledge to support their party’s candidates Hilary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential Election. However, violating their pledges to vote in favour of Hilary Clinton they voted otherwise. In response, the State of Washington fined the electors 1,000 $ each. Being aggrieved, the electors challenged their fines in the State Courts arguing that the Constitution gives members of the electoral college the right to vote in whatsoever manner they please. The Washington superior court rejected their claims. The State Supreme Court also repelled their further challenge and upheld the original judgment. These electors took the challenge further to the American Supreme Court. The electors argued that the terms “appoint,” “Electors,” “vote,” and “by Ballot” used in Article II section 1 of the US Constitution underlined the expectations of the framers to confer an unbridled constitutional right upon the electors to vote in terms of their own judgments. The electors further made a reference to the Federalist Papers no.68 of Hamilton wherein he had praised the Constitution for entrusting the Presidency to “men most capable of analyzing the qualities” needed for the office, who would make their choices “under circumstances favorable to deliberation.” They had also submitted that John Jay too had predicted that the Electoral College would “be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens,” whose choices would reflect “discretion and discernment.” Rejecting all such submissions and relying upon its earlier decision of the year 1952 in the case of Ray Vs. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952) the court however, held that Article II section 1 of the US Constitution which gives the States the authority to appoint electors, ipso facto, includes the further powers to discipline and rein in such electors as an additional condition of their appointment as elector. The court held that there is no constitutional restraint in any other provisions of the constitution putting a fetter on the exercise of such a right by the appointing state. Article II section 1 of the constitution, in the court’s view, confered the broadest power of determination over those who become electors. The relevant provisions of the Article relied upon by the court read as follows;- “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion/judgement of the court in the following terms “But even assuming other Framers shared that outlook, it would not be enough. Whether by choice or accident, the Framers did not reduce their thoughts about electors’ discretion to the printed page. All that they put down about the electors was what we have said: that the States would appoint them, and that they would meet and cast ballots to send to the Capitol. Those sparse instructions took no position on how independent from—or how faithful to—party and popular preferences the electors’ votes should be. On that score, the Constitution left much to the future. And the future did not take long in coming. Almost immediately, presidential electors became trusty transmitters of other people’s decisions.” The judgment/opinion further held that Courts and commentators throughout the 19th century recognized the electors as merely acting on other people’s preferences. Making a reference to an earlier judgment of the court authored by Justice Story ( the youngest judge of the American Supreme Court till date) justice Kagan relied upon the same and quoted from the said judgment as follows;- “the electors are now chosen wholly with reference to particular candidates,” having either “silently” or “publicly pledged” how they will vote. Nothing is left to the electors, he had continued, “but to register their votes, which are already pledged.” Indeed, any “exercise of an independent judgment would be treated as a political usurpation, dishonourable to the individual, and a fraud upon his constituents.” Similarly, justice Kagan noted that William Rawle had explained how the Electoral College functioned in the following terms: “The electors do not assemble in their several states for a free exercise of their own judgments, but for the purpose of electing” the nominee of “the predominant political party which has chosen those electors.” After taking stock of these earlier judicial pronouncements and observations the court speaking through justice Kagan held therefore, that …… “looking back at the close of the century, this Court had no doubt that Story’s and Rawle’s descriptions were right.” The electors, the Court therefore, noted, were chosen “simply to register the will of the appointing power in respect of a particular candidate. It was thus held that “the Electors’ constitutional claim has neither text nor history on its side. Article II and the Twelfth Amendment give States broad power over electors, and give electors themselves no rights. Early in our history, States decided to tie electors to the presidential choices of others, whether legislatures or citizens. Except that legislatures no longer play a role, that practice has continued for more than 200 years. Among the devices States have long used to achieve their object are pledge laws, designed to impress on electors their role as agents of others. A State follows in the same tradition if, like Washington, it chooses to sanction an elector for breaching his promise. Then too, the State instructs its electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution—as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.” In essence the majority opinion relied upon the provisions of Article II section 1 and the further fact that the bare bones of the Constitutional provisions, having acquired strength and sinews by consistent longstanding practice, and having become a settled healthy convention cannot be deviated from. Interestingly, however, Justice Clarence Thomas, while concurring with the conclusions of the majority, expressly rejected the reasoning given therein. While the majority view relied upon the language of Article II Section 1 of the Constitution to bolster and fortify their conclusions, Justice Thomas dissented and held thus ‘In short, the Constitution does not speak to States’ power to require Presidential electors to vote for the candidates chosen by the people. The Court’s attempt to ground such a power in Article II’s text falls short. Rather than contort the language of both Article II and the state statute, I would acknowledge that the Constitution simply says nothing about the States’ power in this regard.’ Having rejected the reasoning of the majority that the power to appoint an elector impliedly gives the states the power to prescribe any condition for such appointment such as pledge, oath or fine, Justice Thomas relied upon the Residuary Powers of the states (i.e. powers not enumerated in the constitution to the union) and held as follows “When the Constitution is silent, authority resides with the States or the people. This allocation of power is both embodied in the structure of our Constitution and expressly required by the Tenth Amendment. The application of this fundamental principle should guide our decision here.” Elaborating further on the scheme of allocation of powers under the US Constitution justice Thomas explained “This allocation of power is apparent in the structure of our Constitution. The Federal Government “is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. “The powers delegated by the . . . Constitution to the federal government are few and defined,” while those that belong to the States “remain . . . numerous and indefinite.” States face no such constraint because the Constitution does not delineate the powers of the States. Article I, section 10, contains a brief list of powers removed from the States, but States are otherwise “free to exercise all powers that the Constitution does not withhold from them.” Thus, in USA “where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power, that is, where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication,” the power is “either delegated to the state government or retained by the people.” This fundamental allocation of power according to justice Thomas applies in the context of the electoral college. Article II, section 1, and the Twelfth Amendment address the election of the President through a body of electors. These sections of the Constitution provide the Federal Government with limited powers concerning the election, set various requirements for the electors, and impose an affirmative obligation on States to appoint electors. Put simply, nothing in the text or structure of Article II and the Twelfth Amendment contradicts the fundamental distribution of power preserved by the Tenth Amendment. The unanimous judgement/opinion of the court comes as a welcome relief at a time when the election of the American President by the Electoral College is on the anvil and is scheduled to be held on 14.12.2020 The Supreme Court in this judgment however, has not commented upon the merits or demerits of the present indirect election of the American President by the Electoral College. The debates for its substitution by a more democratic method continues even today. Modern critics, for example, the American Bar Association, have described the Electoral College “as archaic, complex, indirect and dangerous,” Public interest in change has been spurred by several close elections where a shift of fewer than 10,000 votes in a state is sufficient to nullity 107 million deficit in the popular vote. The direct vote plan, whose principal sponsor was Democratic Senator Birch Bayh, attracted the most attention, but was defeated in the Senate. Under his plan, the President was to be elected by a direct popular vote on a nationwide basis. If no candidate received at least 40 per cent of the votes, “there would have been a runoff between the top two candidates.” In the final analysis, therefore, no one is really certain of the impact of abolition of the Electoral College of the American political system. For this reason, passage of any future amendments and their ultimate ratification by the States are doubtful. Both Congress and the States will be wary of change. American Constitution is a classic example of a rigid Constitution.Views are personal.(Jana Kalyan Das is a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India, Sandeep Devashish Das & Ninad Dogra are practicing Lawyers)Next Story
Twitter Bobby “Slick” Leonard, Indiana basketball legend, dies at 88 Twitter Facebook WhatsApp Google+ Previous articleCommunity tip leads to arrest by SBPDNext articleSouth Bend high school teams to honor Jackie Robinson Tommie Lee Facebook IndianaLocalNewsSouth Bend MarketSports (Photo supplied/Indiana Pacers) An Indiana basketball legend has passed away.Bobby “Slick” Leonard was the coach of the Pacers from 1968 to 1980, and spent years after that as a radio color commentator for the team.He died at his home in Carmel on Tuesday.Leonard was a Naismith Hall of Famer who led the Pacers to three ABA championships in the early 1970s before the team joined the NBA. As a player he scored the winning shot for Indiana in the 1953 NCAA Tournament and played in the NBA before becoming one of its youngest coaches ever.“Slick” was 88. Tommie Lee MNC News. Pinterest Google+ By Tommie Lee – April 13, 2021 0 135 Pinterest WhatsApp
– Advertisement – A young conservative activist, John Doyle, who runs a YouTube channel called Heck Off, Commie!, was circulating a Google doc that encouraged people to head off the purported fraud in Pennsylvania and lobby state legislators “to cast their electoral votes as Republican!” The document, which listed the names and numbers of all the state’s legislators, was created on Tuesday — that is, before the president or his allies were claiming the election was being stolen in Pennsylvania.Mr. Doyle did not respond to a request for comment, and his Twitter account, @ComradeDoyIe, was suspended on Thursday for violating the platform’s terms of service. Mark Levin, a popular conservative radio host and ardent Trump supporter, echoed Mr. Doyle’s call for Republican state legislators to disregard the outcome of the voting. In a tweet on Thursday, he wrote: “REMINDER TO THE REPUBLICAN STATE LEGISLATURES, YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY OVER THE CHOOSING OF ELECTORS, NOT ANY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, SECRETARY OF STATE, GOVERNOR, OR EVEN COURT. YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY.”- Advertisement – Dozens of other Twitter accounts pushing the hashtag #StopTheSteal were created in October and the first few days of November. The use of freshly created social media accounts to amplify a message is a common feature of disinformation campaigns.By Wednesday, the hashtag had quickly jumped from the hard-right of the internet to mainstream Republicans. The Philadelphia Republican Party picked up the hashtag in a tweet, tagging Eric Trump, the president’s son, and Mr. Giuliani, and urging them to “get ready to #StopTheSteal and deliver Pennsylvania” to the president. Eric Trump went even further. He posted and then quickly deleted a tweet using the hashtag on Thursday and asking, without evidence, why the F.B.I. and the Justice Department were not stepping to stop election fraud. Jeanine F. Pirro, the popular Fox News personality, tweeted a similar thought.- Advertisement – A day earlier, Eric Trump had posted a video purporting to show ballots that had been cast for his father in Virginia Beach, Va., being burned. City officials later said that the ballots were clearly samples and not real. But even before that, the video’s questionable provenance probably should have been a tipoff that it was fake: It came from a Twitter user who goes by the handle @Ninja_StuntZ and is connected to the troll-infested message board 8kun.
Published on February 18, 2015 at 12:10 am Contact Sam: [email protected] | @Sam4TR Facebook Twitter Google+ Doubts were the only thoughts in Shaina Harrison’s mind.Syracuse assistant coach Dave Hegland had prefaced Harrison’s first collegiate meet with confidence-boosting words about how her race would was taking place on a fast track.“So I go in thinking that I’ll break records and win all the races,” Harrison said. “My first round wasn’t anywhere close to what I had expected. I started to doubt myself. I thought, ‘Maybe I’m not as fast as I think I am.’”After her second heat didn’t show any significant improvement, Harrison became overwhelmed. She started to cry.Now, two years later, she’s met those expectations. The junior sprinter returns for her track season coming off of an NCAA championship appearance in the 100-meter dash — not even her best event. Harrison’s evolution from the emotionally frayed freshman to the self-confident, in-control runner has been a journey of research and self-discovery through meditation.AdvertisementThis is placeholder textLast year, Harrison qualified for the Atlantic Coast Conference championship meet. Since she had no pre-existing expectations of excellence, Harrison didn’t think too much about the meet. She ran a personal record, finished second and qualified for the national championship meet.“It’s funny,” Harrison said Hegland told her. “You came in thinking, ‘I wasn’t even going to make it here in the first place’ so your thought process was that you’d be happy with whatever happened. You ran a great race.”Harrison thought that if she didn’t have pressure to run, she’d perform better. But the tricky part was that she felt pressure if she thought she should run well.She did extensive research and eventually found that meditation relaxed her. It helped Harrison focus on goals and empty her mind of anything else.Now, every morning after Harrison awakes, she says a prayer, meditates for 10–20 minutes and does breathing exercises in her University Village apartment.“Once the negative thoughts and doubts start coming, I know how to handle it,” she said. “And how to help myself and relax and be in the moment instead of thinking of the end result and self-doubt.”Her focus on positive energy translates to the track where Harrison visualizes herself succeeding before she’s even left the blocks.She zones out, and clears her mind of anything irrelevant. Her mind becomes empty aside from the images of her success playing in her head on a loop. She looks down her lane and, in her words, “whatever happens, happens.”“She has always been mature overall but I’ve seen her grow in this sport,” SU volunteer assistant Flings Joyner Owusu-Agyapong said in an email. “This sport can be really mental, and I’ve seen her handling situations better than she would have, say, her freshman year.”Harrison’s become a more consistent runner, and Hegland says that’s her best attribute. The head coach tracks all his runners’ progressions in graphs, and Harrison’s rose and fell in her first year and a half before leveling out since then.“Every time she stepped on the track as a sophomore outdoors,” Hegland said. “She was better than her best day as a freshman.”It’s been a process of becoming – and a fight to stay – positive for Harrison.Now, Harrison says she’s become a mentor to her roommate Rebecca Robinson and is helping others while blossoming as a runner — a year after she struggled to help herself.“Even if she doesn’t run well one day, she’s not the type of person to dwell on it,” Robinson said. “She thinks, ‘Well, I’ll get them next time.’” Comments
Related Articles Paddy Power raises awareness of Missing People with Motherwell ‘silhouette’ stand August 7, 2020 Share Irish bookmaker Paddy Power has launched an “incredible offer for all small staking punters” to mark the first day of this year’s Cheltenham Festival (13-16 March).The offer, which stipulates that money will be given back as free bets on all each-way singles with stakes of £10 and under so long as the favourite is victorious, was just one of the pre-festival offers analysed by bettingexpert as part of an exclusive build-up for SBC News.Stephen Harris, Horse Racing Expert at bettingexpert, said of the deal: “Although only up to ten pounds in value, this is an incredible offer for all smaller staking punters, especially as there are numerous short priced favourites on day 1 of the Cheltenham Festival.”Elsewhere, bet365 has thrown down the gauntlet with the offer of £100 credit to new customers. Customers must deposit £5 or more after signing up, which will then be matched in credits. The offer will be further reinforced by a best-odds guarantee from the Staffordshire-based firm.Harris added: “This is a terrific offer for all new customers who have yet to open an account with bet365. bet365 are the industry leaders who have a huge customer base, and offer best odds guaranteed to all their recreational customers (which is an excellent incentive to take their competitive early morning prices at the Cheltenham Festival).”Meanwhile, smaller bookmaker Matchbook is hoping to make the most of the week with 0% commission on horse racing and up to £500 cashback; while Unibet is offering money back as bonus up to £30 if your first Cheltenham bet loses.Harris said: “The new kid on the block in terms of betting exchanges, Matchbook are making a real bid to gain liquidity from the dominant exchange, and their offer of 0% commision on all horse racing bets until the end of the Cheltenham Festival is well worth taking up.“Unibet is a small firm looking to attract recreational players, and this generous opening offer is a good one for those without an existing account.”William Hill’s ‘Double Up’ offer gives double winnings on the Supreme Novices Hurdle. The deal applies to first single wins or each bet placed after 18.00 on 2nd March, with winnings of up to £100 cash.Coral’s generous money back welcome deal offers £20 in free bets for every fiver staked, while BetVictor goes one further with its ‘Bet £10 get £60 deal’. Unlike Coral’s, BetVictor’s deal can only be accessed from a qualifying bet with odds of 2.00 or greater. UKGC lifts Matchbook suspension August 12, 2020 Flutter moves to refine merger benefits against 2020 trading realities August 27, 2020 Share StumbleUpon Submit
(Visited 16 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 The structure of an important potassium-ion gate in the membrane of brain cells has been found to open like a camera iris.In Nature, Eitan Reuveny described a paper in the same issue by Whorton and MacKinnon that reveals how an important molecular gate named GIRK2 works in the membranes of brain cells. These gates control the passage of potassium ions (K+) to the outside of the cell, a process that changes the electrical charge between inside and outside, allowing conduction of electrical signals. His description, “Ion channel twists to open,” compares the twisting motion of the components to a camera iris: “The conformational changes that open the inner helical gate are comparable to the widening of a lens aperture by hand-rotating the aperture ring.”But whose hands rotate the ring? The cylindrical channel that allows passage of K+ ions is surrounded by four complex proteins that lock into the cell membrane. Activation of these “hands” by G-protein coupled receptors makes them turn the channel, opening it just a bit wider, but not enough, to allow the ions through. From there, random perturbations may permit the ions to “burst” through the narrow opening as observed in living cells. The channel also contains a “selectivity filter” to ensure only K+ ions can make it through.Reuveny began by explaining the importance of these channcels:Ion channels are the main units responsible for the electrical activity in our body. They constitute a large family of some 400 proteins in humans. A subfamily of these proteins consists of four GIRK channels, which specialize in converting chemical signals — mostly those of neurotransmitter molecules such as acetylcholine, dopamine, serotonin and adrenaline — into electrical ones in heart cells and neurons. They are therefore essential for controlling heart rate and the activity of neural circuits.Roderick MacKinnon received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2003 for his work on ion channels (see “Wonders of the Salt Gate” 1/17/02, also 3/12/02, 5/29/02, 5/01/03). This paper contributes to the “long-awaited crystal structure of the mammalian GIRK2 channel in complex with two subunits of a G protein (a dimer of the Gβ and Gγ subunits), providing information about their mechanism of opening,” Reuveny said. Ion channels such as GIRK2 literally “pump” ions against the direction of osmosis in order to set up the voltage necessary for electrical transmission.It’s nice to see MacKinnon still at work uncovering the secrets of these cellular gates a decade after receiving his Nobel. In the past 10 years, has he seen the light of the Darwinists? Has he found evolution essential to explain how these exquisite molecular gates work? Nope. Neither MacKinnon or Reuveny even mentioned it.Thinking about the action of these gates in slow-motion is amazing enough. Realize, though, that they act lightning-fast, allowing your heart rate to adjust and allowing chemicals and ions to speed through the brain at the speed of thought. Just like in 2002, this is phenomenal evidence for intelligent design.
Johannesburg will play host to the 1 500 youth leaders from around the world who will attend the One Young World Summit in 2013. Brand South Africa has partnered with One Young World and assisted the City of Johannesburg in winning the bid to host the Summit. Read more
Jonathan Williams RehabArkansas running back Jonathan Williams hasn’t played all season due to a foot injury, but the bruising senior is working his way back to the gridiron. Whether he’ll next suit up for the Razorbacks or in the NFL, Williams is determined to make a full recovery. Last week, he posted video of himself running for the first time since the injury, and today he shared footage of himself doing underwater agility drills. Best of luck to Williams as he continues to progress in his rehab.
zoom Danish conglomerate A.P. Moller – Maersk posted a nine-month loss USD 1.6 billion, sinking into the red from last year’s profit of USD 780 million.The group’s loss includes the impact from discontinued operations and was primarily related to post-tax impairments of net USD 2.8 billion in Maersk Drilling, APM Terminals and Maersk Tankers countered by an increase in Maersk Line profit of USD 723 million.Moller Maersk’s underlying profit for the period came at USD 270 million, against a loss of USD 245 million, mainly driven by an increase in Maersk Line of USD 687 million.In the third quarter, the net loss including discontinued operations of USD 1.5 billion was negatively impacted by an accounting impairment of USD 1.75 billion in Maersk Drilling and impairments of USD 374 million in APM Terminals. The result from continuing operations was a loss of USD 120 million, widening further from last year’s loss of USD 30 million, with a decrease in APM Terminals of USD 398 million countered by an increase in Maersk Line of USD 336 million.In Q3, the underlying profit was USD 248 million, with an improvement of USD 290 million in Transport & Logistics and a decline of USD 15 million in Energy.“I am pleased with the agreements reached in Q3 for Total S.A. to acquire Mærsk Olie og Gas A/S and A.P. Møller Holding A/S to acquire Maersk Tankers A/S, which indicates a solid progress in the separation of the Energy businesses. Whilst solutions for Maersk Drilling and Maersk Supply Service remain to be defined before the end of 2018, the future Maersk will leverage even further its position of strength within Transport & Logistics.The revenue in Transport & Logistics increased with 14% and was mainly driven by higher revenue in Maersk Line,” Søren Skou, CEO of A.P. Møller – Mærsk A/S said.Furthermore, Maersk Group announced that the Salling Companies will acquire the remaining 19% shares in the Dansk Supermarked Group, cashing in over USD 860 million from the sale.The group now expects a positive underlying profit for 2017 against a loss of USD 546 million. As informed, the group’s Transport & Logistics arm now expects an underlying profit of around USD 1 billion and an improvement in Maersk Line of around USD 1 billion compared to 2016.
FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. – The Rotary Club of Fort St. John held their annual ‘Drive-Thru’ Breakfast on Thursday morning.The purpose of this event was to raise funds to support local school breakfast programs.Rotary Club member, Marva Kosick, says while they do not have a total amount of funds raised as of Friday, she does say that the Club had served around 1,000 hot breakfasts which is more than the initial goal of 700. For a minimum donation of $7.00, the Drive-Thru Breakfast included a hot off the grill breakfast sandwich, a side of fruit and a beverage, all in a reusable lunch bag.Kosick says it was a great event and gives thanks to the community for the amazing support in making this fundraiser a great success.