According to a report issued by the National Center for State Courts and the State Justice Institute, Connecticut on average takes 10 hours to select jurors for criminal trials and 16 hours for civil trials. In comparison, in South Carolina, voir dire averages 30 minutes. This has led a few Connecticut legislators to push for reform. They argue that the current voir dire process works in favor of the attorney who is billing by the hour and that voir dire should not last longer than the actual trial (both good points).
The disparity between states like Connecticut and South Carolina is attributed primarily to the fact that attorney conducted voir dire moves much slower than judge conducted voir dire (no great surprise here). Another factor, not widely known, is that Connecticut permits individual questioning of every potential juror. A right enshrined in the Connecticut Constitution , Article 1, Section 19, "the right to question each juror individually by counsel shall be inviolate." Thus, lawmakers seeking change seem somewhat constrained, absent passing a Constitutional Amendment.
One possible solution is to require judges to take a more active role in the voir dire process and limit the scope of attorney questions. Also, the Court could use more in-depth questionnaires (see Deliberations Blog) or limit the type of questions that attorneys can ask. However, I believe it folly to prevent individual questioning whether it be done by the attorney or judge. As pointed out by Andrew Sheldon, a trial consultant, "in group settings, people just slip into a socially acceptable means of responding." Thus, it becomes much more difficult to ferret out juror biases.