THURSDAY, JULY 6 | SERVING TEXAS A&M SINCE 1893 | © 2023 STUDENT MEDIA
Student debt relief overruled
Local leaders support MSC early voting
Court rules Biden’s proposal unconstitutional, unauthorized
Committee recommends return of on campus polling option
By Jack Lee @JackTheBatt
By Ana Renfroe @aeoenia After the controversial removal of the Memorial Student Center, or MSC, as an early voting location last year, it has been readded as a recommended voting center. On Wednesday, June 28, the Brazos County Commissioner’s Court held a public workshop session to review all voting center recommendations. Multiple community members, students and representatives from local voting advocacy groups attended the meeting at the Brazos County Administration Building to listen to the Megan Williams — THE BATTALION Vote Center Review Committee’s presentation, led by Brazos County Elections Ad- Content via Brazos County Commissioners Court. For more information visit thebatt. com. ministrator Trudy Hancock. Listed on their online agenda, there are Multiple A&M students voiced franchised. 24 recommended voting locations, which their opinions at the following meetAlthough many students on camnotably include the MSC and the College ings, along with the A&M Student pus drive, not all commissioners acStation City Hall. Senate passing legislation to advocate counted for the distance from campus In July 2022, the MSC was not selected for the reinstatement of the MSC, stat- for students who lack such resources. as an early voting location by a 4-1 vote, ing that removing the central building The city hall is no less than 30 minwith several voting officials citing the lo- on campus interfered with students’ utes one-way if students walked, and gistical costs of adding additional proposed access to voting. Former Precinct 2 factoring in waiting times and walking locations. Instead, the MSC was replaced by Commissioner Russ Ford was the back, many students expressed conthe College Station City Hall. This change only dissenting vote against the loca- cerns over dedicating so much time was proposed by Precinct 3 Commissioner tion change, being outspoken about within their schedules to vote. Nancy Berry, who intended to help reduce how other members didn’t understand In October 2022, students advocatconfusion for residents who struggled with the importance of the MSC and enVOTING ON PG. 2 navigating the Texas A&M campus layout. suring student voters were not disen-
FEATURE: SPORTS: NEWS: In New owners Bahama blast, Terry Price: In breathe life into new baseball memoriam, this thrift scene cast 1968-2023 ON PG. 3 ON PG. 4 edition ON PG. 2
OPINION: Why summer flings always fizzle out
ON PG. 6
On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down President Joe Biden’s federal loan forgiveness program, putting about 20 million people back on the hook for repaying up to $20,000 in student loans. On August 23, 2022, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Christopher Schroeder opined that loan cancellation via executive order was legally possible under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities For Students Act, which authorizes the federal government to grant educational financial relief in response to “war or other military operation or national emergency.” Biden’s administration later issued up to $20,000 of debt relief under the justification of economic relief for the COVID-19 pandemic. On September 29, 2022, the states of Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina brought legal action in a federal court against Biden, claiming that the loan cancellation program was unconstitutional, overstepping the executive branch’s power. While initially dismissed, the case was appealed and eventually argued before the Supreme Court. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote “the Court [concludes] that ‘[t]he basic and consequential tradeoffs’ inherent in a mass debt cancellation program ‘are ones that Congress would likely have intended for itself.’ … the Court has required the Secretary [of Education] to ‘point to ‘clear congressional authorization’’ to justify the challenged program.” The court’s opinion officially struck down federal student loan cancellation unless Congress at a later point approves such a program. In response, Biden said via an official statement the termination of his financial relief program was unjust. “The average amount forgiven in the PPP — the pandemic loan program — average amount forgiven was $70,000,” Biden said. “Now, a kid making $60,000 bucks, trying to pay back his bills, asking for $10,000 in relief — come on. The hypocrisy is stunning.” In contrast, Pete Sessions, the congressional representative for the area of Texas including Texas A&M, endorsed the decision in a Tweet. “I applaud the Supreme Court’s ruling against President Biden’s unconstitutional student loan forgiveness program,” Sessions wrote. “The ruling is a victory for our constitution, and a reaffirmation of our commitment to the rule of law … such reform cannot be implemented by unilateral executive action.”