Abstract: This article discusses the efficacy of various reforms proposed to limit or end the racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges in jury selection. Part I focuses on how differing judicial interpretations of the standard established in Batson v. Kentucky (1986), in particular, trial judges' acceptance of prosecutors' racially neutral explanations for peremptory strikes, have undermined the protection "Batson" was meant to offer against discriminatory peremptory strikes. Part II both discusses the feasibility of various proposed race-conscious remedies to discriminatory peremptory challenges and also proposes stronger procedural remedies, including the penalty of dismissal with prejudice. Expansive attorney-conducted voir dire is analyzed as a necessary step toward empaneling a fair jury and reducing the role of stereotypes and biases in the jury selection process. Part III analyzes the merits and disadvantages of eliminating peremptory challenges altogether. The article concludes by recommending new restrictions on the use of the challenges, restrictions which should make prosecutorial racist challenges much more difficult while preserving the benefits that well-exercised challenges continue to provide for criminal defendants.