Committee advances bill to remove licensure requirement for makeup artists
Summary
The House Business Committee voted to send House Bill 121 to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. Sponsor Representative Jeff Ehlers said the licensure created in 2018 covers only a small number of practitioners and that there have been no consumer complaints in five years.
The House Business Committee voted Feb. 17 to send House Bill 121 to the full House with a recommendation of do pass. The bill, sponsored by Representative Jeff Ehlers, would remove the state licensure requirement for makeup artists under the barber and cosmetology code.
Representative Jeff Ehlers (R., Meridian), the bill sponsor, said the makeup-artist license, created in 2018, applies to a very small number of practitioners. "Currently there's only 36 licenses," Ehlers told the committee, and he said the Department of Professional Licensing records show "0 complaints in the last 5 years." He said the bill would allow makeup artists to continue practicing without the statutory licensing requirement.
Committee members asked whether the licensing requirement addressed health and safety concerns. Representative Barbieri said she was concerned about risks when cosmetics are applied near the eye. Ehlers and a Department of Professional Licensing (DOPL) representative clarified the proposal applies to makeup artists specifically and does not change licensure for barbers or cosmetologists. The DOPL representative stated that eyelash application and permanent makeup (tattooing) are not covered by the makeup-artist definition at issue.
Representative Wheeler opened and closed the public hearing and moved the motion to send HB 121 to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. The committee approved the motion by voice vote; the transcript records the motion "carries" but does not include a roll-call tally.
Key details discussed in committee: the sponsor noted 36 licensed makeup artists in the state and said no consumer complaints were recorded for the past five years; the statutory training requirement listed in the code is 100 hours and the file indicates no continuing-education requirement. Supporters framed the bill as a deregulatory, free-market measure; opponents raised health-and-safety questions focused on eye-area procedures. No consumer witnesses spoke during the public testimony in the hearing record.
Committee action: HB 121 was advanced to the House floor with a do-pass recommendation by voice vote.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.
