A Fraud Fighter Account lets you choose from several security options to better protect your money. These provisions can help protect you from becoming a victim of high-pressure sales, financial scams, overreaching by caregivers and family members or identity theft. The options include:
• Setting fixed limits on daily and monthly withdrawals from your checking or savings accounts.
• Notifying you and/or a trusted third party before suspicious transactions are processed.
• Limiting or preventing electronic access to your accounts.

This new, updated, and expanded Public Service Orientation Guidebook is developed to give public officers an overview of Arizona’s laws concerning ethical standards. Although the Attorney General’s Office offers this Guidebook and a training program to assist you, the Office also is responsible to investigate and prosecute violations of public service laws. Accordingly, it is important that public officers understand that they are each responsible for complying with the law.

Hundreds of Arizona consumers called the Attorney General’s Office to investigate whether illegal conduct was responsible for Arizona’s gasoline prices jumping 48 cents in the days following Hurricane Katrina. On September 9, 2005, Attorney General Terry Goddard launched civil antitrust and consumer fraud investigations into the causes of Arizona’s high gasoline prices. The Antitrust Unit issued 45 Civil Investigative Demands to a cross-section of Arizona’s gasoline wholesalers, distributors, retailers and related parties. The CIDs requested information and data regarding supply, demand, sales, prices and industry communications from August 1, 2005 through September 9, 2005. ATU thoroughly examined all of the information provided by the CID recipients, conducted interviews and performed independent market research to determine whether Arizona’s abnormally high prices were the result of collusion or other anti-competitive or fraudulent practices prohibited by law. The investigation did not uncover any illegal conduct.

For those interested in one of the most extreme state tax and expenditure limitations, TABOR – Colorado’s initiative that limits the funding of most expenditures to annual revenue growth restrained by the sum of annual population growth and inflation rates – would seem to be exactly the right choice. To some, the initiative simply limits government to spend within its means. However, the analysis in this paper reveals that, true to the language in the 1992 Colorado initiative, TABOR limits government growth, and over time the public sector, as a share of the overall economy, declines sharply – crowding out opportunities for investments in strategic initiatives or opportunities for tax reform that may be popular with large voter constituencies or the business community. Advocates point out that provisions in TABOR do allow for voter overrides, but these are costly in both time and money, and until the overrides take place, government is
hamstrung. A simpler, more efficient alternative would be to elect fiscally conservative legislators and hold them accountable for prudent fiscal decisions that strike the right balance between a tax base conductive to economic growth and strategic investments that provide public sector infrastructure, nurturing the business climate and promoting the health and well-being of the citizenry. The paper first outlines the TABOR amendment in Colorado and examines its fiscal consequences for that state. It then examines the potential impact of a TABOR in Arizona.

The research for this report was conducted in two phases. The first phase analyzed the change in national job quality using multiple datasets, going back as far as 1970. In addition, the level and change in job quality was estimated for one state (Arizona). Some inconsistencies in the measurement of job quality exist across datasets. Complete results of this analysis, with a strong focus on Arizona data, are available in the report "Job Quality in Arizona". The second phase analyzed data for all states but was limited to two datasets, one presenting industrial data, the other occupational data. Because of the limited availability of state data by occupation, the time period analyzed was restricted to the years 2000 and 2003. The level of job quality in 2003 and the change between 2000 and 2003 are presented. The findings of the second phase, initially reported in "Job Quality in Arizona Compared to All States", are included in the current report, excluding detail provided for Arizona in the original report. Additional national and regional analyses are included in the current report.

The best way to evaluate job quality would be to analyze a dataset that presents both occupational and industrial data, but the only dataset of this nature available by state comes from the decennial census. It is severely limited by small sample size, the latest data are for 1999, and the 1999 data are not consistent with the 1989 data. Thus, the initial work by the Seidman Institute on job quality ("Job Quality in Arizona", March 2005, presented data on Arizona job quality from several sources of either industrial or occupational data. "Job Quality in Arizona Compared to All States" is an extension of the March 2005 report. Arizona’s job quality in the latest year and its change over time is compared to the national average and is ranked among the 51 “states” (including the District of Columbia).

Housing discrimination is particularly serious because our nation was founded on the ideals of individual
freedoms, and one of the most fundamental freedoms in a democracy is the freedom to move about and live where you choose. Whether that choice involves transferring from one city to another, or just moving across the street, a person’s ethnicity, family situation, or disability should never be a barrier to selecting
a home, apartment, or any other kind of dwelling. This guide to fair housing is designed to help you if you believe you have been subjected to unfair housing practices.

The demand for new workers in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) occupations in Arizona is a function of net job growth in these occupations in the state and the number of workers leaving STEM jobs in Arizona. Employees may leave their position for various reasons, including to retire, to move out of the state, or to change their profession. The supply of new workers in STEM occupations in Arizona is a function of the number of new college graduates in related majors, the number of workers moving to the state who are qualified to fill STEM jobs, and the number of Arizonans who are qualified to fill STEM jobs moving from a non-STEM to STEM occupation.

Mexico is Arizona’s No. 1 trading partner with over $15 billion in trade annually. The bulk of Arizona’s international commerce is with Sonora, the immediate neighbor to the south, but there are other potential economic opportunities worth exploring across Mexico. Here the focus is on Guanajuato, one of Mexico’s most economically advanced states with robust international trading ties. Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions and Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University researched the potential for enhanced economic ties between Arizona and Guanajuato, a state and capital city by the same name located in Central Mexico, 227 miles northwest of Mexico City and about 1,100 miles southeast of Phoenix. Watts College and Morrison Institute partnered with the L. William Seidman Research Institute at ASU’s W.P. Carey School of Business to produce a detailed economic profile of Guanajuato in order to guide ongoing and future exploration of expanded trade with Arizona.

Attorney General Opinions are issued when requested by the legislature (or either house of the legislature), any public officer of the State, or a county attorney, on a question of law relating to their office. Our office does not issue opinions for private citizens, nor do we offer legal advice to private citizens.

The following opinions were issued from 1999 to the present time. The first two digits of each opinion indicate the year it was issued (I99 indicates it was issued in 1999), and the next three digits sequentially number the order in which the opinions were issued. For example, I99-003 would be the third opinion issued in 1999. The number in parentheses (R98-025) references the request for an opinion file number. Opinions of the Attorney General are advisory, and do not have the same effect as decisions of a court of law.