a two-to-one margin. A Stony Brook Press editorial from V. 29, N. 3, summed up objections to the new proposal: "Although it is flattering that the current drafters would believe that a 'flexible' document would be easier to navigate than the [current] Constitution, which explicitly lists clubs' rights and budgeting processes, this move would ultimately be more detrimental to the students. If the Judiciary were to turn to Constitution 2.0 to reach a verdict pertaining to any club, where would they look? Would they simply end up quoting the same line over and over again [about viewpoint neutrality]? In the [current] Constitution, all clubs can look for any specific information, instead of one small clause about viewpoint neutrality. In this case, we would have to agree that less is definitely not more." A similar proposal was defeated in Spring 2008 by a two-to-one margin, despite changes that were made to appease critics. Although these proposals failed at the ballot, some of the changes were ultimately made through legislation. In the 2007-08 academic year, the various bylaws and Senate acts of the USG were consolidated into a unified USG code, similar to the United States Code. The intent of the innovation was such that when the Senate acted to amend existing law, it would be amending the code itself. This would prevent laws enacted from years prior from being lost in the shuffle in between academic years or subject to malicious destruction, a common problem in the early days of USG. To stop the problem, under older practice, the acts of the Senate had been informally kept in a binder at the front desk of the USG office, maintained by the President Pro Tempore and Executive Vice President, and often these were the sole copies of laws available. The USG code created a formal, orderly way of maintaining the integrity of the laws. To facilitate the process of maintaining the USG code, an Office of Law Revision was established, with members appointed by the Executive Vice President and President Pro Tempore of the Senate, a majority of whom had to be voting members of the Senate. In the Spring of 2009, two competing parties formed, SBUnited and the Student Advocates party. Each party sought to reform the internal operations of USG. By the end of 2009, the SBUnited party and Student Advocates united to create the Students First Party. The name