Last week’s discussion in this space focused on Proposal 22-08, which would reverse the burden in the exercise of a peremptory challenge from the party objecting to the challenge to the party seeking to exercise it and the elimination of the requirement that purposeful discrimination be shown.That overhaul is entirely unsound and the definition of “objective observer” in the proposal improperly loads the analysis.But those are not the only defects in the proposal.In addition to the framework of Batson v …