Panel backs bill raising penalties for buyers of sex and sealing records for trafficking victims; enforcement, victim‑protection tradeoffs debated

House Bill 2720, presented to the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee, would expand the crime of prostitution to include paying or offering to pay for sex, create minimum sentencing requirements for buyers, levy a $200 assessment per conviction to an anti‑human‑trafficking fund, and allow trafficking victims whose convictions are vacated to petition immediately to seal records related to the offense.

Representative Selena Bliss, the sponsor, described the bill as a mirror of earlier legislation and said it seeks to shrink demand that fuels trafficking. Rebecca Baker of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office supported the bill, saying higher penalties for buyers "increase the social cost of engaging in this conduct" and help reduce demand. Phoenix Police Lieutenant Chris Paris of the Human Exploitation and Trafficking unit described on‑the‑ground enforcement and said a higher felony classification could have a deterrent effect, though he acknowledged limited staffing for such operations.

Survivors and victim‑service groups also testified in favor: Sherry Lopez described personal experience of seeing buyers remain unpunished and urged maintaining felony penalties. Other witnesses and providers urged stronger safeguards for victims. Opponents — including the Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence and the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice — expressed concern that raising buyer penalties without sufficient statutory protections for trafficking victims can increase risk to people coerced into selling sex, and they pressed for a rebuttable presumption or clearer affirmative defenses to protect victims from felony prosecution.

Committee discussion touched on empirical evidence for deterrence, affirmative defenses already in statute, and whether a rebuttable presumption was achievable within the same bill. The committee ultimately recommended HB 2720 do‑pass 4–3; multiple senators explained votes noting the need for additional guardrails or support services before final passage.