This opinion column by Arizona ���ϳԹ��� of Commerce & Industry President and CEO Danny Seiden originally in The Arizona Capitol Times. 

In their memoir , Milton and Rose Friedman wrote that property rights “are the most basic of human rights and an essential foundation for other human rights.”

That’s a good framing to consider the state of property rights in Arizona and how leaders like Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell are doing in upholding this “essential foundation.”

Here are a few points on why I believe Mitchell deserves high marks on her private property scorecard:

Organized retail theft

Shoplifting, or shrinkage in retail industry parlance, has always been a source of worry for retailers.

But today’s thieves are cannier than ever, often part of sophisticated organized retail crime rings that steal merchandise to be resold.

Since early in her term as county attorney, Mitchell has made cracking down on organized retail crime a top priority. She has assembled a task force that includes private sector members, launched a safe shopping campaign during the holiday season, and hasn’t gone soft on pursuing tough sentences for convicted thieves.

Not everyone in her position has adopted a similar strategy.

After San Francisco Mayor London Breed help from her city’s board of supervisors in combating a soaring property crime rate, District Attorney Chesa Boudin downplayed the progressive policies that contributed to rising crime, casting blame toward the reforms he supported was “misguided” and that we instead should examine the “root causes of crime,” ticking off areas where the social safety net has too many holes.

Voters weren’t having it. They him from office in June 2022.

Mitchell’s crackdown on organized retail crime rings sends a powerful message, and the right one – justice will be served, and criminals will be held accountable for their actions. You won’t find San Francisco-style criminal justice policies in Maricopa County.

The dinnertime burglars

In January, the Scottsdale Police Department announced that in a less-than-three-month span it had received more than 20 calls about burglaries that had occurred during the dinner hour, especially at homes that abut golf courses or greenbelts. Jewelry was often the target of break-ins.

Phoenix police in February arrested three suspects. The investigation has revealed that this was hardly a group of small time bandits. The thieves had ties to a South American crime ring, had been connected to more than 100 burglaries in the Valley, and had been responsible for the theft of more than $3 million in goods. They were all from Chile but were carrying fake Spanish IDs.

The bad guys weren’t just slipping in through an unlocked door. They had high-tech equipment to jam alarm systems, and tools to cleanly punch through windows and pick locks.

Mitchell gave the case the attention it deserved. Working with Scottsdale and Phoenix PDs, the investigation expanded to six suspects being charged, one of whom has been involved in similar burglaries in Nevada and California. They’ve all been charged with a series of felonies and are being held on cash-only bonds.

So, why does the business community care about how and whether the county attorney pursues prosecutions for property crimes?

Beyond retailers wanting to protect their inventories or businesses wanting to protect their premises, the ability to own, use, and dispose of property as one sees fit is essential for innovation, investment, and societal progress. Without strong protections for property owners, we risk stifling entrepreneurship and discouraging individuals from investing in their communities.

Don’t buy the argument from Mitchell’s critics that stringent property laws disproportionately affect marginalized communities. Strong property rights benefit everyone, regardless of socio-economic status. They provide individuals with a sense of security and empowerment, enabling them to build wealth and achieve upward mobility.

When prosecutors look the other way on property crime, it just encourages more crime and of increasing severity, including squatting, which is its own magnet for drug use and other illicit behavior.

Like we saw in San Francisco, policymakers will find out that a lackadaisical approach to protecting private property will have political consequences. Voters in Arizona will decide in November whether property owners should be able to recoup at least a portion of any expenses that result from a city’s failure to control a public nuisance that infringes on their property rights.

Ultimately, the strength of a society is measured by its respect for individual rights and the rule of law. By safeguarding private property rights and holding criminals accountable, Rachel Mitchell is not only protecting our homes and businesses but is also preserving the principles upon which our nation was founded.

Danny Seiden is president and CEO of the Arizona ���ϳԹ��� of Commerce & Industry.

The post Maricopa County attorney makes property rights a priority appeared first on ���ϳԹ���.

In an by the Phoenix-based law firm Snell & Wilmer, the State of Arizona has been trying to advance a novel and troubling concept through a recent “test case”: holding corporate leaders personally liable when their company violates the law, even if they did not participate, know about, or approve of the underlying actions. This idea, known as the “responsible corporate officer doctrine,” is a judge-made theory of liability similar to piercing the corporate veil. Adopting this doctrine would upend traditional legal protections and create uncertainty for business leaders across the state.  

In State v. Tombstone Gold & Silver, Inc., the State of Arizona sued a mining company and three of its individual officers for violating a consent order. In its complaint, the State sought liability and damages against the officers under the responsible corporate officer doctrine even though the State had no evidence that the officers directed—or knew about—environmental law violations. In fact, the officers were not even parties to the consent order that the State accused them of violating. In other words, the State sought to establish a form of strict liability, where officers of the company were automatically personally liable for a company’s actions. 

Fortunately, the court quickly rejected the State’s argument, recognizing the State was trying to vastly expand liability for corporate officers. It noted that no published Arizona case has ever adopted the responsible corporate officer doctrine and declined to take the State’s invitation to expand officer liability beyond what the environmental law statutes already provide. It dismissed the officers from the case and invited a petition for their attorney fees and costs.  

The court was right to do so. The responsible corporate officer doctrine would not only erode the corporate structure’s safeguards but also deter investment and innovation in Arizona.   

Business leaders already make difficult decisions every day to manage risk, meet client needs, and deliver returns to shareholders. These tasks are difficult enough without having to worry about things outside their control resulting in personal liability. Introducing a blanket liability standard for actions beyond their control would only add unnecessary burdens and hinder economic growth. 

Arizona has worked hard to develop a reputation as a business-friendly state. Threatening corporate officers with personal liability for actions the officers did not direct risks this reputation. Further, it signals that Arizona may not be the predictable, stable, and reasonable policy environment to which businesses have grown accustomed.  

For now, corporate officers remain safe from the State’s attempts to erode the corporate form. Hopefully, Arizona’s courts keep it that way. 

Nate Curtisi is chief counsel for the Arizona ���ϳԹ��� of Commerce & Industry.

The post Court rejects State of Arizona’s novel legal theory that creates uncertainty for businesses appeared first on ���ϳԹ���.

The state Legislature is nearing the halfway mark for committee hearings. The House committees have completed their consideration of bills that originated in the House, while the Senate committees have heard bills that originated in the Senate. Except for some agency continuation bills that will be heard in the Senate Health Committee, only the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are meeting this week to consider a full slate of bills. 

Beginning next week, committees will begin to hear bills that originated in the opposite chamber. 

Here’s a look at where issues of importance to the business community stand in the legislative process: 

Extension of the Arizona Commerce Authority 

State agencies’ lifespans are set by the Legislature and undergo reviews by the auditor general at the end of their terms. The Arizona Commerce Authority, the state’s lead economic development agency, is up for renewal this year. 

HB 2417, sponsored by Rep. David Livingston (R-Peoria), would extend the ACA for an additional four years. 

The Arizona ���ϳԹ��� of Commerce & Industry has made the ACA’s extension a priority for the session. 

“The ACA has proven essential to the state’s economic success for more than a decade,” ���ϳԹ��� Vice President of Government Affairs Courtney Coolidge said. “We appreciate Rep. Livingston for sponsoring the bill and we’ll continue to stress to legislators the consequences of not renewing the ACA.” 

The House Appropriations Committee passed Livingston’s bill 14-2. It will head to the House floor for a vote after it’s cleared by the Rules Committee. 

Renewal of Proposition 123 funding 

Arizona voters in a 2016 special election passed Proposition 123, which increased investment in K-12 education by $3.5 billion and ended a long lawsuit over previous state budgets’ K-12 funding levels. 

The proposition is nearing the end of its 10-year lifespan, and the business community has identified a refreshed measure as a necessity to avoid a reduction in funding. 

Both the governor and legislators have their own plans for a successor to Proposition 123, with varying levels of disbursements proposed from the state land trust to schools. 

“We appreciate that the Legislature and the Governor’s Office are making the extension of Prop. 123 a priority,” Coolidge said. “We hope stakeholders can get together to refer a solution that will resonate with voters and pass in November to ensure public education continues to receive these critical dollars.” 

Greater transparency in third party litigation funding 

HB 2638, the Litigation Investment Safeguards and Transparency Act, sponsored by Rep. Travis Grantham (R-Gilbert), would make the often-secretive practice of third-party litigation financing, where a lender bankrolls a lawsuit in exchange for a cut of the settlement or award, more transparent to defendants and courts. 

Litigation funding has grown in popularity among big-dollar benefactors, including hedge funds and private equity firms, looking to make a return on lawsuits. Opponents argue that the practice can extend litigation, causing plaintiffs to cut off settlement talks so a greater return can be delivered to the lawsuit’s financial backer. 

Due to concerns that third-party funders are directing legal strategy, Grantham’s bill ensures decision-making over a case’s strategy rests with the plaintiff, not the outside funder, and it would force the funder to cover any sanctions associated with bringing a frivolous lawsuit. The bill also says litigation financing must be disclosed to an attorney’s clients, the court, and all parties in litigation. 

“Our legal system is one of Arizona’s competitive advantages, ensuring plaintiffs and defendants are on an even playing field,” Coolidge said. “This bill would be an important civil justice reform.” 

The bill passed the House Judiciary Committee last week and now heads to the Rules Committee before it can proceed to the full House for a vote.

The post Business priorities progress as Legislature hits halfway mark for committee hearings appeared first on ���ϳԹ���.

The state House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday advanced a bill to require greater disclosure by plaintiffs whose lawsuits are underwritten by outside entities, including international hedge funds and private equity groups that have found the American tort system to be a lucrative market. 

HB 2638, the Litigation Investment Safeguards and Transparency Act, sponsored by Rep. Travis Grantham (R-Gilbert), attempts to put guardrails around the often-secretive practice of third-party litigation financing, where a lender bankrolls a lawsuit in exchange for a cut of the settlement or award. 

Litigation financing has exploded in sophistication over the last decade, going from the subject of late-night TV ads encouraging plaintiffs to pursue litigation with the help of a high-interest loan, to now being popular with billion-dollar financiers who see lawsuits as an opportunity for a big return on investment. 

In Arizona, whether a lawsuit is being funded with outside dollars isn’t disclosed, there’s no guarantee that the funder won’t walk away with more money than the plaintiff, and the defendant doesn’t know whether settlement negotiations are being conducted with the opposing counsel or being influenced by the third-party funder. 

“What I’m trying to do is put some guardrails around this practice and at least open it up to a little bit of visibility so that folks know where these dollars are coming from,” Grantham said. “We’re more than willing to all agree, I think, that we should all know who each other’s donors are. Why can’t we be that way when it comes to this type of litigation?” 

Laura Curtis, who testified in support of the bill on behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, said defendants and courts often have no idea who the funders are or that they’re involved at all. 

“To ensure a high rate of return on their investments, the litigation funders seek to increase the likelihood of trial, which enhances the possibility of frivolous and misguided litigation,” she said. 

Under the bill, litigation financing must be disclosed to an attorney’s clients, the court, all parties in litigation, lead counsel in mass litigation, and members of a class action. The bill also ensures decision-making over a case strategy rests with the plaintiff, not the outsider funder, and it would force the funder to cover any sanctions associated with bringing a frivolous lawsuit. 

The U.S. ���ϳԹ��� of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, one of the country’s leading civil justice reform groups, supports the bill. 

“These are not the type of funders that are in the normal practice of funding injured clients or small dollar litigation. They are large investment firms, hedge funds, and even foreign-state-owned, state-run investment firms, also known as sovereign wealth funds. Silent partners, particularly foreign ones, are simply not something our judicial system is set up for, nor does their involvement comport with concepts of fairness and justice this state’s courts and our nation’s courts demand,” attorney Roger Gibboni said. “HB 2638 would ensure that litigants, not outside investors, retain control in the decision-making in their cases, an important consumer protection. And it would ensure that litigants, not funders, walk away with the majority of an award.” 

The bill is supported by a broad coalition of the business community, including the Arizona ���ϳԹ��� of Commerce & Industry, the Arizona Trucking Association, the Health System Alliance of Arizona, the Arizona Lodging & Tourism Association, the Arizona chapter of NFIB, the Greater Phoenix ���ϳԹ��� and more, groups representing businesses that have found themselves the targets of the types of lawsuits that attract outside funding. 

The Arizona Trial Lawyers Association and the International Legal Finance Association oppose the bill. 

The bill now heads to the House Rules Committee and then to the full House for a vote.

The post Bill to improve transparency in litigation financing advances in House appeared first on ���ϳԹ���.

Leaders in Arizona, including Speaker of the House Ben Toma and Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, and across the country are pursuing policies to crack down on retail theft, which the National Retail Federation contributed to more than $110 billion in losses in 2022.

Toma (R-Peoria) and Mitchell at a press conference Tuesday called for passage of �մdz���’s HB 2435, a bill that would stiffen penalties for retail theft.

Retail thieves, according to law enforcement and retailers, are becoming more organized and more brazen.

Organized retail theft is often part of a larger fencing operation, where stolen goods are sold off for cash, where in typical shoplifting, long the scourge of the retail sector, stolen goods are used for personal use.

Los Angeles leads the nation in retail theft, a distinction Mitchell says her office won’t let come to Maricopa County.

“As this county’s prosecutor, I have said, ‘If you come here from these other states, such as California, where (retail theft) is tolerated, plan to stay,’” Mitchell , joining Arizona Retailers Association President Michelle Ahlmer and Toma in support of �մdz���’s legislation. “Speaker �մdz���’s bill has made it possible that they understand that Arizona – specifically Maricopa County – will not tolerate this type of offense that is driving retailers to close stores, to hurt the communities that the stores are located in, and driving people out of business. I really appreciate Speaker �մdz���’s sponsorship of this bill. It will make a difference.”

Toma agreed.

“California may tolerate lawlessness, but my bill, HB 2435, will tell criminals that they’ll pay a heavy price for stealing,” he on X.

Strategies in other states and jurisdictions

The U.S. ���ϳԹ��� of Commerce recommends :

• Coordinate resources among business and law enforcement: Vital information regarding criminal activities and the necessary tools to combat them are frequently not shared among businesses, law enforcement agencies, and policymakers. In order to efficiently address widespread crime, local businesses must collaborate and exchange information regarding criminal incidents to identify patterns and implement effective strategies.

• Aggregate offenses to punish repeat offenders: Thieves engage in a pattern of stealing slightly below the felony threshold in each theft, frequently targeting the same stores across different jurisdictions and repeatedly committing thefts to avoid felony charges. San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan and others recommend amending state laws to establish a separate offense for the repetitive stealing of specific amounts within designated timeframes. 

�մdz���’s says a person who is convicted of a third or subsequent organized retail theft 

offense is to be sentenced as a category two repetitive offender. Organized retail theft in 

Arizona is currently classified as a class 4 felony, which punishes first-time offenders 

with 1 to 3.75 years in prison or up to four years of probation.

• Prosecute aggressively to combat lawlessness: Prosecutors face unique challenges when dealing with crimes that span multiple jurisdictions, but efforts are being made to address this issue. The Pennsylvania ���ϳԹ��� of Commerce backed a bill in that state to establish a new office of  Deputy Attorney General for Organized Retail Crime Theft. Additionally, states should authorize attorney generals and special prosecutors to aid in intricate, multi-jurisdictional cases, thereby conveying a robust statewide stance against retail crime.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes oversees an Organized Retail Theft Task Force, which last year investigations into gift card cloning, and the theft of more than 3,200 cans of baby formula, more than 1200 cloned Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards. 
“Those participating in organized retail theft are on notice that in Arizona, their organizations will be disrupted, they will be apprehended, and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Mayes . “Organized retail theft and fraud harms all of us, from the victims themselves to regular Arizonans facing increased prices that result from theft.”

Photo courtesy Rep. Toma via .

The post State House speaker behind bill supported by county attorney and retailers to stiffen penalties for retail theft appeared first on ���ϳԹ���.

In a move to address increased seasonal demand across various industries and curb irregular migration, the U.S. federal government is set to offer nearly double the number of H-2B temporary worker visas for the 2024 Fiscal Year compared to the current year. 

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Labor, a proposed regulation that would make an additional 64,716 H-2B temporary nonagricultural worker visas available, supplementing the Congress-mandated annual quota of 66,000.

The primary objective behind this expansion is to meet the rising demand for seasonal labor while simultaneously addressing concerns related to irregular migration, as outlined by the Department of Homeland Security.

Key points regarding the H-2B visa expansion include:

1. The proposed regulation will bring the total number of available H-2B visas to 130,716 for the 2024 Fiscal Year.

2. Among the additional visas, 20,000 will be allocated to specific countries, including Colombia, Ecuador, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Haiti.

3. Approximately 45,000 supplemental visas will be provided to temporary workers who have been granted H-2B visas in the past three fiscal years.

The H-2B program enables U.S. employers to hire non-citizens for nonagricultural work that is seasonal or temporary in nature. To participate, businesses must first demonstrate to the Labor Department that there is an insufficient number of qualified U.S. workers available for their staffing needs. Moreover, they must show that employing H-2B workers would not adversely impact wages or working conditions for domestic workers in similar positions.

Despite the increase in available visas, the demand for H-2B visas consistently surpasses the allocated quota, a fact highlighted by the American Hotel and Lodging Association. 

“The H-2B Workforce Coalition, which AHLA co-chairs, worked hard to convince the Biden Administration to offer this considerable expansion, which nearly doubles the yearly allocation of H-2B visas,” AHLA President & CEO Chip Rogers said . “These extra visas will be crucial to helping hotels and resorts in remote vacation destinations fill seasonal roles, and we thank Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas for making them available. But we still need help from Congress to get hoteliers across the country all the employees they need. That includes establishing an H-2B returning worker exemption, passing the Asylum Seeker Work Authorization Act, and passing the H-2 Improvements to Relieve Employers (HIRE) Act.”

The HIRE Act, introduced in July by Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX) along with several bipartisan cosponsors, would extend the time an H-2B worker could stay in the U.S., and would streamline the process for a returning worker to renew their visa. 

The bill is supported by many business groups, including the U.S. ���ϳԹ��� of Commerce, which said the legislation “will diminish the onerous compliance burdens for employers desperately seeking the workers they need.” 

The post Federal government to expand H-2B visa availability appeared first on ���ϳԹ���.

Former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould has joined the Phoenix office of Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky and Josefiak PLLC, a nationally recognized law firm specializing in government compliance matters, election law, commercial litigation, and white collar investigations. 

Gould, who will be in Holtzman Vogel’s appellate, commercial litigation and constitutional law practices, was a member of the state Supreme Court from 2016 to 2021.

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the firm specializes in navigating sensitive, high-stakes regulatory and litigation matters for the country’s most prominent individuals, corporations, and advocacy organizations, and has a team of nationally renowned lawyers in political law, government investigations, business and non-profit compliance, litigation, environmental law, and land use.

“The caliber of attorneys at Holtzman Vogel is unmatched. Our team is comprised of competitive, talented lawyers with unparalleled expertise, and the addition of Andy in Arizona further strengthens our bench of talent in the region,” said Jill Holtzman Vogel, founder and managing partner of Holtzman Vogel. “Andy’s background as both a judge and attorney will prove invaluable for not only our firm, but for our clients’ needs.” 

Gould, an established attorney and respected judge with decades of experience, has a successful record of navigating Arizona’s legal landscape and advocating for his clients and the public. He specializes in appellate advocacy, constitutional law, civil rights litigation, and commercial litigation. Gould can also handle complex civil mediations and arbitrations.   

Gould began his legal career in Phoenix, practicing in the field of civil litigation. After many years of private practice, he became a deputy county attorney, prosecuting major criminal cases for Yuma and Maricopa Counties, then served as a judge on Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals, where he authored more than 400 opinions. Gould was most recently senior counsel for the nonprofit First Liberty Institute, where he litigated religious liberty cases throughout the U.S.  

Beyond his work in the courtroom, Gould is an active member of various legal organizations and community organizations. He frequently participates in panels, conferences, and seminars to promote legal education and raise awareness about important legal issues. Gould also serves as an adjunct professor at Arizona State University Law School where he teaches torts and the First Amendment.  

Gould joins Holtzman Vogel with a robust list of authored opinions, such as Arizonans for Second Chances v. Hobbs, Johnson Utilities, LLC, v. Arizona Corporation Commission, Brush and Nib Studio, LC v. City of Phoenix, and more.   

He earned his J.D. from Northwestern University School of Law and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Montana.

The post Former state Supreme Court justice joins Phoenix office of prominent national firm appeared first on ���ϳԹ���.

The Arizona ���ϳԹ��� of Commerce & Industry is calling on Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to end his department’s unfair treatment and scrutiny of Grand Canyon University. 

In a from the ���ϳԹ��� to Cardona sent last week, the ���ϳԹ��� cites its concern over the Department of Education’s refusal to acknowledge GCU’s transition from a for-profit status to non-profit, which has led to litigation that diverts resources away from the university’s educational mission. 

Furthermore, the letter expresses concern about the excessive scrutiny placed on GCU, which is typically reserved for institutions that offer subpar educational programs and that encourage students to rely on loans to finance their education. In stark contrast, GCU’s graduates are well-prepared for the job market, graduate with less debt, and repay that debt more reliably than their peers. 

“When an institution of higher learning is producing graduates ready for today’s economy, is keeping students’ costs down, and is investing in its home campus’ traditionally underserved Maryvale neighborhood of Phoenix and its schools, we should stand up and applaud,” Arizona ���ϳԹ��� of Commerce & Industry President and CEO Danny Seiden said. “Yet in the case of GCU, the U.S. Department of Education is tying the school up in red tape and moving goalposts, making it more difficult for the school to continue its good work.” 

The ���ϳԹ��� says the Department of Education’s arguments against GCU are “flimsy” and “borderline preposterous.” For example, the government says that GCU’s estimates of the cost of finishing a doctoral program weren’t sufficiently transparent. But GCU provides prospective doctoral students with far more information on costs than ever required by the federal government. The government has also made the charge that GCU’s advertising claim that “Cybersecurity experts are in high demand” is misleading when the need for cybersecurity professionals in today’s workforce is obvious. 

The ���ϳԹ��� says it believes that the government’s actions are inconsistent with Secretary Cardona’s stated vision for a new higher education model. GCU has proven to be a disruptor in the higher education landscape and plays a crucial role in making education accessible to a diverse array of students, representing a step toward realizing the secretary’s vision. 

“The department should absolutely safeguard the integrity of higher education, but the treatment of GCU is disproportionate and, at times, hostile,” Seiden said. “The contradictory guidance and relentless demands placed on GCU are detrimental to the university’s growth and to the students it serves, who deserve far better treatment.” 

Seiden says GCU, with its transformative impact on higher education, is attracting students from across the nation. Arizona depends on GCU and its graduates, and the country needs more institutions like GCU dedicated to expanding access to quality education. 

GCU is garnering support from leaders inside and outside of Arizona. 

At an October 6 meeting of hundreds of GCU employees at the Phoenix campus, Phoenix sports and business icon Jerry Colangelo said that GCU is one of the greatest success stories he has ever seen.

“To know the facts and see how the government is responding the way they are, it’s absurd. It really is,” said Colangelo, whose name graces GCU’s business college. “You can’t quit on this issue, you have to fight the issue when truth is on your side. You go to the mat and you continue to fight the battle until the battle is over.”

Arizona state Senate President Warren Petersen, House Speaker Ben Toma, Senate and House Education Committee Chairs Ken Bennett and Beverly Pingerelli, as well as Senator Janae Shamp, all Republicans, sent their own to Cardona, writing, “Many in Arizona, and in higher education, view GCU as a model of innovation for postsecondary education that provides solutions for 21st century demands. It is this revolutionary approach to higher education that causes many in Arizona, and in the higher education community, to value GCU and look to it as a leader in the future of higher education. However, it appears for these same reasons GCU is celebrated, the Department is targeting the University. The issues being discussed by the Department could easily be resolved by two amicable parties.” 

The university is also finding allies on the opinion page. In a recent Wall Street Journal under the headline, “Biden’s Regulators Gang Up on a Christian College,” the paper said, “GCU offers woke-free vocational training and a liberal arts education,” and that the government’s targeting of GCU would ultimately hurt GCU students.

Image from GCU

The post Federal government’s scrutiny of GCU draws rebuke from Arizona ���ϳԹ���, business and political leaders appeared first on ���ϳԹ���.

A southern Arizona charity was recently awarded $50,000 to aid the fight against human trafficking.

The Champion Against Human Trafficking Award was made to the Southern Arizona Dream Center by United to Safeguard America from Illegal Trade, also known as USA-IT, a national coalition led by Philip Morris International. The group is comprised of dozens of national and state brand enforcement experts, law enforcement agencies, academics and leading business organizations leading training programs and raising public awareness of the depth and severity of illegal trade.

The grant was made at a summit convened by USA-IT focused on human trafficking and featured several of the strongest national voices on illicit trade and human trafficking prevention.

“We are humbled and honored to receive the Champion Against Human Trafficking Award to strengthen our mission against human trafficking,” Southern Arizona Dream Center Director Terry Bernier said. “There is a significant need in Southern Arizona for an immediate shelter for trafficking victims. This generous donation will help our organization to establish a safe home to provide a safe refuge and critical services for victims of human trafficking.”

The Southern Arizona Dream Center is one of two Dream Centers working in Arizona to support the homeless, addicted, and trafficked. The Dream Center network represents locations in the United States and abroad, offering a food bank, clothing, and assistance programs to people in need. The centers focus on the full, successful transformation of people’s lives, all free of charge.

“For years, criminals have shamelessly skirted the criminal justice system to support large-scale operations, bringing a relentless cycle of crime into our communities and onto our interstates, including human trafficking,” said Kristin Reif, head of state government affairs for Philip Morris International. “We are proud to contribute to these organizations and support their work in providing justice to the vulnerable.”

“No one government or industry can address this complex problem on its own,” USA-IT spokesperson Alysa Erichs said. Erichs is the former acting executive associate director for Homeland Security Investigations. “And with tens of thousands trafficked in the U.S. every year, we must continue doing more. Only by working together, can we help disband criminal organizations and safeguard our communities from illegal trade and the far-reaching web of crimes it fosters.” More information about USA-IT’s efforts to combat illegal trade can be found at .

The post Southern Arizona Dream Center awarded $50,000 in fight against human trafficking appeared first on ���ϳԹ���.

A new from the Common Sense Institute of Arizona (CSI) details the positive economic benefits of HB 2569, a 2019 bill and law that made Arizona the first state in the nation to adopt universal occupational licensing recognition. Since its passage, the state has more than 8,000 licenses that would not have been furnished without the legal enshrinement of reciprocity.

Glenn Farley, the author of the report and the director of policy and research for CSI Arizona, concluded that over the last 3.5 years, universal licensing recognition has added 13,100 jobs to the state economy and $1.2 billion in economic growth. Additionally, as Arizona continues to experience unprecedented rates of in-migration, Farley says that the adoption of universal licensing has positively contributed to the expansion of the state’s population. Since 2019, annual domestic in-migration has increased from 70,000 people per year to 100,000 people per year.

“If the program continues attracting workers at this rate over the next decade it will generate more than $3 billion in new annual economic activity for Arizona,” Farley said. Additionally, it could add over 30,000 jobs. While these projections assume the same rate of usage experienced during the last 3.5 years stretching over the next 7.5, Farley argues that this is a reasonable expectation. In fact, “the program continues to attract new workers at roughly the same rates today as during its inaugural year.” 

When breaking down which sectors have benefited most from this reform, construction, real estate, and healthcare come out on top. These three industries lead the pack when looking at the more than 8,000 new licenses issued since the reform’s implementation.

The report also addresses a common critique of universal occupational licensing recognition: that it could negatively affect health and safety. “CSI reviewed and could not find evidence of any decrease in regulated service quality,” said Farley, “as measured by the volume of professional complaints received since enactment of the universal recognition law.” 

While he acknowledges that these findings are not conclusive because of a lack of available and standardized data, he says that their analysis of professional complaints are indicative.

Reformers across the nation on both sides of the aisle have rushed to enact universal reciprocity following Arizona’s first in the nation law. Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Nevada, and 15 other states enacted similar laws in the years following HB 2569’s enactment. 

Momentum has built for such reforms, as economists have increasingly argued that strict professional licensure regimes hamper economic growth. Only 5% of the American workforce had or was required to have an occupation license in the 1950s, versus over 20% today.

“Occupational licensing requires time, effort, and money to obtain – which reduce[s] the willingness of new workers to enter a licensed occupation,” Farley says. “These burdens can be particularly acute if a worker crosses jurisdictional lines.” 

In 2022, CSI AZ calculated that occupation licensing has cost Arizona 188,000 jobs and $16.2 billion in GDP.

Image via . Creative Commons license .

The post New report details economic benefits of Arizona’s first-in-the-nation universal licensing recognition appeared first on ���ϳԹ���.