Provides relative to the Louisiana Cosmetology Act (EN INCREASE SG RV See Note)
HB 326 revises the Louisiana Cosmetology Act by changing the composition and qualifications of the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology and updating several fee provisions. The bill keeps the board at eight gubernatorial appointees, but clarifies that members must include representation from each congressional district and specific industry roles, including at least one cosmetologist, one esthetician, and one manicurist. It also expands the list of eligible board-member backgrounds to include registered cosmetologists, estheticians, manicurists, salon owners, accredited cosmetology school owners, and cosmetology teachers or instructors.
The bill also strengthens conflict-of-interest language for board membership. It limits the number of board members who may be directly or indirectly connected to a cosmetology school and defines what counts as a connection, including ownership, employment, contractual relationships, or certain family ties. In addition, it clarifies that board members must recuse themselves when a vote would create a violation of the Code of Governmental Ethics. The fee schedule for licenses, registrations, inspections, permits, and school certificates is revised, including changes to resident and nonresident rates and several permit and renewal fees.
HB 326 amends Louisiana Revised Statutes 37:571, 37:572, and 37:599, directly affecting the governance and fee structure of the state cosmetology licensing system. It changes who may serve on the cosmetology board, adds diversity and industry-representation requirements, imposes stricter limits on school-related conflicts, and updates the board’s authority to assess fees for cosmetologists, estheticians, manicurists, teachers, salons, mobile salons, booth rentals, temporary permits, and cosmetology schools. These changes affect licensees, salon and school owners, instructors, and the board’s regulatory operations.
The bill appears to have been generally well received and ultimately passed with strong bipartisan support, though not unanimously. It cleared the House and Senate by comfortable margins, and the House later overwhelmingly rejected Senate amendments before adopting a conference report, suggesting the chambers worked through differences but remained broadly aligned on the bill’s core goals. The final votes indicate overall support for updating cosmetology board governance and fees.
The main points of contention appear to have centered on board composition, conflicts of interest, and fee changes. The bill’s restrictions on how many board members may be connected to cosmetology schools suggest concern about industry influence and regulatory capture, while the recusal language addresses ethics issues in board decision-making. The revised fee schedule may also have drawn attention because it changes costs for individual practitioners, salons, mobile salons, booth renters, and schools, including resident versus nonresident rates. The House’s rejection of Senate amendments indicates there were some differences between the chambers, but the final conference report resolved them.