Members of Student Union vote on Wednesday evening.

The change, pending majority approval by SU Treasury and two-thirds of the student body, would cut six seats—four from the College of Arts & Sciences, one from the engineering school and one from the business school.

Senators J.R. Davis and Neel Desai sponsored the amendment. They stressed it would improve competition for SU Senate, making sure people who win seats genuinely want the job, and pressure senators to perform their work.

Three vice presidents of administration have failed to pass the amendment in the past several years. This is the first time it was sponsored by students outside of SU’s executive branch.

Junior Mamatha Challa, vice president of administration, said she was pleased that the amendment she proposed two weeks ago ultimately made it past its first hurdle.

“I’m really excited,” she said. “This is probably the first time it’s been proposed by the senators themselves, which was one of the strengths about it.”

The amendment to SU’s constitution needed two-thirds of the vote to pass. The final vote was 15-7 with 1 abstention; senators were holding bated breath as Speaker of the Senate Dan Robinson verified that the abstaining vote didn’t count against the measure.

Robinson said that while he tries to remain impartial, he was particularly pleased with the group’s discussion concerning the change.

“I think that we had a really productive dialogue in the body,” Robinson said. “I’m glad senators were able to put forth [the] initiative.”

While some senators voiced concern about the amendment ultimately discouraging students from running for SU Senate, numerous freshmen considering running for office said they approve of the legislation.

“I’m glad that they were able to get it through so that everyone can vote on it—this gives the entire school the opportunity to vote on how they are represented,” said freshman Hamilton Cook, from the School of Engineering & Applied Science.

Madhana Pandian, a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences, said the arguments in favor of the change transformed her initial doubts.

“When it was first introduced I had all negative thoughts, because the first thing that came to mind was that the increased competition would make it impossible for freshmen to get on Senate…but I really did side with the decision that was made at the end. The people on the pro side did a really good job of presenting their argument,” she said. “I also really enjoyed the open discussion on both sides.”

Speaker for the Treasury, junior Julian Nicks, said he does not envision the constitutional amendment being nearly as contentious when Treasury considers passing it next week.

“I don’t think it’ll be nearly as hot of a debate,” he said. “I don’t imagine it being even close to this much discussion.”

Treasury member Sean Janda, a sophomore, echoed his sentiments.

“I think that if Senate is going to pass it…it only affects their body, so I think Treasury should pass it as well,” he said.