Gold-Standard Compliance, Legal Education, and Public Transparency Statement

Louisville Beauty Academy (LBA), in collaboration with Di Tran University – College of Humanization, publishes this analysis as part of its institutional commitment to gold-standard regulatory compliance, legal education, and public transparency in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

As a state-licensed cosmetology institution, LBA is not only required to comply with Kentucky statutes and administrative regulations, but is also obligated to teach cosmetology law, administrative regulation, and professional responsibility as a core component of licensure preparation. Kentucky cosmetology education is, by design, a regulated professional curriculum, not a purely technical training program. Legal and regulatory literacy is therefore a required competency for students, graduates, licensees, and salon operators.

Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 317A establishes cosmetology as a regulated profession and authorizes the regulatory framework governing licensure, inspections, discipline, and enforcement. Administrative regulations under Title 201, Chapter 12 further implement this framework and require approved schools to instruct students in laws, rules, health and safety standards, and professional conduct. These requirements are reinforced through state licensing examinations, which test knowledge of Kentucky law, administrative rules, scope of practice, and compliance obligations as a condition of entry into the profession.

At the gold-standard level, Louisville Beauty Academy treats legal and regulatory instruction not as a minimum checkbox, but as an essential safeguard for:

• Public health and safety
• Student and graduate licensure success
• Lawful salon operations
• Long-term professional sustainability

Recent legislative changes enacted in 2025–2026 have significantly heightened regulatory scrutiny across the beauty industry. In this environment, ignorance of administrative process, statutory authority, and due process protections exposes licensees and facilities to severe penalties, including fines, suspension, and immediate closure. Accordingly, teaching the law is no longer optional—it is foundational.

This publication is therefore issued as a research-based, educational analysis intended to:

• Fulfill and support Kentucky’s statutory and regulatory requirements for teaching cosmetology law and regulation
• Explain the structure, authority, and procedural limits of cosmetology regulation in Kentucky
• Promote proactive, documented, and informed compliance
• Serve students, graduates, licensees, salon owners, policymakers, and the public with accurate regulatory education

Louisville Beauty Academy further recognizes that regulatory literacy does not end at graduation. As part of its gold-standard compliance philosophy, LBA elevates required legal instruction by extending it beyond the classroom to graduates, licensees, and the public, reinforcing a culture of transparency, accountability, and lawful practice throughout the industry.

Compliance is strongest when it is informed, documented, and human-centered.

---

Regulatory Currency Notice:
Kentucky statutes, administrative regulations, board policies, and enforcement interpretations are subject to amendment, repeal, judicial interpretation, and administrative revision. Accordingly, this publication reflects the law and regulatory landscape as understood at the time of publication and may become partially outdated as statutes, regulations, guidance, or enforcement practices evolve.

Students, graduates, licensees, salon owners, and members of the public are encouraged to verify current requirements through official sources, including statutes, administrative regulations, board publications, and licensed legal counsel, before relying on this material for compliance decisions.

Louisville Beauty Academy publishes this analysis as part of its ongoing educational mission and will continue to update, supplement, and expand its research and guidance as the law develops.

Educational Scope & Non-Adversarial Disclaimer

Educational Disclaimer:
This publication is intended solely for educational and public-information purposes. It discusses Kentucky administrative law principles and cosmetology regulatory procedures in the abstract and does not assert that any specific enforcement action by the Kentucky Board of Cosmetology was unlawful, improper, or invalid. This analysis does not constitute legal advice and does not replace official regulatory guidance or consultation with qualified legal counsel.

Administrative Due Process and Regulatory Compliance in Kentucky Cosmetology: A Comprehensive Analysis of Board Procedures, Disciplinary Actions, and Licensure Scope

Abstract

The regulation of the beauty industry in the Commonwealth of Kentucky represents a complex intersection of statutory mandates, administrative regulations, and evolving judicial interpretations of due process. For students, licensees, salon owners, and the public, understanding the internal mechanics of the Kentucky Board of Cosmetology (KBC) has transitioned from a matter of professional best practice to a critical necessity for legal survival. Recent legislative amendments, specifically Senate Bill 22 (2025) and Senate Bill 84 (2025), have dramatically altered the regulatory landscape. SB 22 classifies the employment of unlicensed personnel as an “immediate and present danger” to public health, authorizing immediate facility closures, while SB 84 eliminates judicial deference to agency interpretations, empowering licensees to challenge administrative overreach with renewed vigor.

This report provides an exhaustive, expert-level analysis of the procedural landscape governing cosmetology in Kentucky. It examines the KBC’s operational transparency through the lens of the Open Meetings and Open Records Acts, dissects the anatomy of the disciplinary complaint process under 201 KAR 12:190, and evaluates the legal enforceability of agreed orders. Particular attention is paid to the distinctions between permissible unlicensed assistance and prohibited professional practice, as well as the administrative law principles that may render certain board orders void ab initio, creating avenues for the refund of unlawfully collected fines. This document serves as a foundational text for stakeholders seeking to navigate the heightened scrutiny of the 2025-2026 regulatory environment.

Section I: The Administrative State of Beauty – Statutory Authority and Agency Structure

To navigate the disciplinary landscape effectively, one must first understand the KBC not merely as a licensing body, but as an administrative agency subject to the strictures of Kentucky public law. The Board acts as a “creature of statute,” possessing only those powers expressly granted to it by the General Assembly.

1.1 The Statutory Hierarchy

The KBC does not have unlimited power. Its authority is strictly hierarchical, and understanding this hierarchy is the first step in identifying ultra vires (unauthorized) acts.

• The Enabling Statute (KRS 317A): This is the constitution of the KBC. It establishes the Board, defines the scope of practice for cosmetology, esthetics, and nail technology, and sets the boundaries for disciplinary action. KRS 317A.020 defines the licensure requirements and the new “immediate danger” standards, while KRS 317A.145 outlines the complaint procedure.¹
• Administrative Regulations (Title 201, Chapter 12): These are the specific rules promulgated by the Board to enforce the statutes. Key regulations include 201 KAR 12:190 (Disciplinary Process) and 201 KAR 12:060 (Inspections). A regulation cannot exceed the authority of the statute. If KRS 317A.020(8) requires a warning notice before a fine, the Board cannot promulgate a regulation that allows immediate fines for minor infractions.⁴
• Senate Bill 84 (2025) and the End of Deference: Historically, Kentucky courts deferred to an agency’s interpretation of ambiguous statutes (similar to the federal Chevron deference). However, SB 84 (2025) codified a massive shift: courts must now decide all questions of law de novo, without deferring to the KBC’s interpretation.⁷ This means if the KBC interprets “shampooing” as a licensed activity but the statute is ambiguous, a judge can overrule the Board more easily than in the past.

1.2 The Board Composition and Quorum Requirements

The KBC is composed of members appointed by the Governor. Under KRS 317A.030, the Board must have a quorum to conduct official business. This is not a trivial bureaucratic detail; it is a jurisdictional requirement for the validity of any order.¹

• The “Rubber Stamp” Vulnerability: In many administrative agencies, staff members or committees negotiate penalties and issue orders that are never formally voted on by the full Board during a public meeting. If a disciplinary action—such as an Agreed Order fining a salon—is issued without a vote by a quorum of the Board recorded in the minutes, that action may be legally void under KRS 271B.8-240 principles applied to public bodies.⁹

Section II: Monitoring the Regulator – Transparency and The Open Meetings Act

The KBC is a public agency, and its decision-making process is subject to public scrutiny. While many licensees only interact with the Board during inspections or license renewals, the true regulatory shifts occur during monthly board meetings. Accessing this information is the frontline of defense for the industry.

2.1 The Open Meetings Act (KRS 61.800 – 61.850)

The Kentucky General Assembly has declared that the formation of public policy is public business and shall not be conducted in secret. For KBC stakeholders, this provides specific rights.

2.1.1 Accessing Agendas

Under KRS 61.820, the Board must provide a schedule of regular meetings and make agendas available to the public.¹⁰ The agenda is the roadmap of the Board’s intent.

• Strategic Importance: The agenda lists regulatory changes, licensure approvals, and, crucially, the ratification of complaints and agreed orders. If a disciplinary action against a salon is not listed on the agenda, the Board generally cannot take final action on it during that meeting.
• Monitoring Protocol: Licensees should designate a compliance officer or checking routine to review the KBC website (kbc.ky.gov) 24 to 48 hours before every scheduled meeting. Look for items titled “Complaint Committee Report,” “Ratification of Agreed Orders,” or “New Business.”

2.1.2 Meeting Minutes as Evidence

KRS 61.835 requires that minutes of action taken at every meeting be promptly recorded and open to public inspection.¹²

• Evidentiary Value: These minutes are not transcripts, but they must set forth an accurate record of votes. If a licensee receives a suspension order dated June 15, but the Board meeting minutes for June show no vote on that licensee’s case, the order may be invalid.
• The “Block Vote” Phenomenon: Often, Boards vote to “accept the recommendations of the Complaint Committee” in a single block vote. While common, this practice can be challenged if the underlying committee recommendations were not made available to the public or the Board members prior to the vote.¹³

2.2 Virtual Access and Modern Oversight

Post-2020, administrative bodies have increasingly utilized video teleconferencing. KRS 61.826 allows for video meetings, provided the public can see and hear the proceedings at a primary physical location.¹⁰

• Remote Observation: For licensees outside of Frankfort, monitoring these streams is a primary method of oversight. Stakeholders should record these streams (as permitted by KRS 61.840) because the written minutes often sanitize the actual debate and discussion regarding enforcement priorities.¹²

Section III: The Power of Information – Leveraging the Open Records Act

When a licensee is the subject of a complaint, or when the public wishes to understand the rationale behind a regulation, the Open Records Act (KRS 61.870 et seq.) is the primary investigative tool.

3.1 Filing a Request for Disciplinary Records

KRS 317A.145 authorizes the investigation of complaints.² However, the documentation generated—investigative reports, inspector notes, and witness statements—is often shielded by the Board until the case is closed.

3.1.1 The “Preliminary Documents” Battle

Public agencies often attempt to withhold records by citing KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j), which exempt preliminary drafts, notes, and correspondence with private individuals.¹⁷

• The Exception to the Exemption: Once final action is taken (e.g., the Board votes to issue a fine), the underlying investigative materials that formed the basis of that decision typically forfeit their preliminary status and become open to inspection. If the Board adopts an investigator’s report as the basis for its decision, that report becomes public.
• Licensee Rights: A licensee who is the subject of the action has a heightened due process right to these records compared to the general public, as they are necessary to prepare a defense.¹⁸

3.2 Accessing Complaint Committee Records

The KBC utilizes a Complaint Committee to review allegations before they reach the full Board. 201 KAR 12:190 establishes this committee.⁴

• Tactical Request: Stakeholders should request the “recommendation logs” or “disposition sheets” of the Complaint Committee. While the committee generally cannot issue a final order, their recommendations (dismissal, investigation, or notice of violation) set the trajectory of the case. Accessing these logs can reveal patterns of enforcement—for example, if the Committee always recommends a $500 fine for a specific paperwork error, this establishes a de facto regulation that may be challengeable if not properly promulgated.¹³

3.3 How to File a Request

Requests must be submitted in writing (email is preferred for tracking) to the Board’s Official Custodian of Records.

• The 5-Day Rule: Under KRS 61.880, the agency has five business days (expanded from three in recent years) to respond to the request.¹⁰
• Form of Request: Use the official KBC Open Records Request form or a letter citing the statute. Be specific: “I request the meeting minutes for the March 12, 2025 board meeting and the ratification list for all agreed orders approved on that date”.²⁰

Section IV: The Anatomy of Discipline – The Complaint Process

The disciplinary machinery of the KBC is triggered either by a consumer complaint or an internal inspection report. 201 KAR 12:190 outlines a rigid procedural framework that the Board must follow. Deviations from this process are not merely technical errors; they are violations of a licensee’s due process rights that can render subsequent fines void.

4.1 The Requirement of Written Notice

Administrative enforcement in Kentucky cannot be based on verbal warnings or informal directives. 201 KAR 12:190 explicitly requires that enforcement be documented.²²

• Mandatory Elements: A lawful notice of disciplinary action must identify:
  1. The specific statute or regulation violated (e.g., “Violation of 201 KAR 12:100 Section 2”).
  2. The factual basis for the allegation (e.g., “Inspector observed reuse of single-use buffer”).
  3. The penalty to be imposed.
  4. The licensee’s right to request a hearing.¹⁶

4.2 The 10-Day Response Window: A Critical Deadline

A frequent procedural trap for licensees is the timeline for responding to a complaint.

• Regulatory Standard: Under 201 KAR 12:190, Section 3, a respondent (licensee) is provided a specific window to submit a written response to a complaint. Historically, this has been set at ten (10) days from the date of receipt.⁴
• Conflicting Timelines: Some amendments reference a thirty (30) day window.² This discrepancy often arises between the initial notification of a consumer complaint (10 days to respond to the committee) and the formal notice of administrative hearing (20 or 30 days).
• Best Practice: Treat the 10-day deadline as the controlling standard for the initial response. Failure to respond within this window allows the Complaint Committee to review the case without the licensee’s defense, often resulting in a default recommendation of guilt.²

4.3 The Right to Correction (Warning Notices)

A fundamental protection for licensees is found in KRS 317A.020(8)(a). This statute mandates that, unless a violation creates an “immediate and present danger” to public health and safety, the Board must first issue a warning notice prior to imposing incremental punitive action (fines or suspension).⁶

• Content of the Warning: The warning must include a specific and detailed description of the violation and the specific remediation required to bring the salon into compliance.⁶
• Legal Implication: If the KBC imposes a fine for a routine paperwork or sanitation violation (that does not constitute immediate danger) without first issuing this statutory warning, the fine is legally defective. Licensees should rigorously verify whether they received a prior warning for the specific offense cited. A warning for a dirty floor in 2023 does not validate a fine for a missing license in 2025 without a new warning, as they are distinct violations.

Section V: Disciplinary Actions and The “Agreed Order” Trap

When the KBC seeks to penalize a licensee, it typically does so through an “Agreed Order”—a settlement contract that avoids a formal administrative hearing. While efficient, these orders can become traps for the unwary, and their validity rests on strict adherence to statutory authority.

5.1 The Nature of Agreed Orders

An agreed order is a binding legal document where the licensee admits to a violation (or agrees to a settlement) and accepts a penalty to resolve the case.

• Voluntary Consent: By definition, an agreed order requires consent. The Board cannot force a licensee to sign an agreed order. If a licensee refuses, the Board must initiate a formal hearing process under KRS Chapter 13B.²⁶
• Board Ratification: Crucially, an agreed order is not valid until it is approved by the Board and signed by the Board Chair or their designee.⁴ A staff member or inspector does not have the independent authority to finalize a disciplinary order.

5.2 Void Ab Initio: The Doctrine of Nullity

A powerful legal concept in administrative law is void ab initio—meaning “void from the beginning.” If the KBC issues an order or imposes a fine without the statutory authority to do so, or in violation of mandatory due process procedures, that action is a legal nullity.²⁸

5.2.1 Lack of Board Quorum or Confirmation

Under KRS 317A.030 and general corporate law principles applicable to boards (KRS 271B.8-240), the Board can only act through a quorum.⁹

• The “Ultra Vires” Act: If the Complaint Committee negotiates a fine and the executive director issues the order without the full Board voting to ratify it during an open meeting, the order may be void. The Complaint Committee is authorized only to recommend actions, not to issue final dispositions.⁴
• Procedural Defect: If a licensee can prove through Open Records requests (specifically meeting minutes) that their specific agreed order was never presented to or voted on by the full Board, they may have grounds to argue the order is void and unenforceable. This is a common procedural failure in high-volume administrative agencies.

5.2.2 Violation of the Warning Statute

If the Board fines a salon for a minor violation without issuing the statutorily required warning notice under KRS 317A.020(8)(a), the fine exceeds the Board’s statutory authority. An agency cannot enforce a penalty that the legislature has explicitly prohibited it from imposing until a warning condition is met. Such a fine would be arbitrary and potentially void.³¹

5.3 The Economics of Enforcement: Refunds of Fines

If an order is declared void ab initio, the legal effect is as if the order never existed. Theoretically, this creates an entitlement to a refund of any fines paid under that void order.

• Sovereign Immunity Hurdles: Recovering money from the state is difficult due to sovereign immunity. However, Kentucky courts have recognized exceptions where an agency acts outside its statutory authority or violates constitutional due process rights.³³
• Tax Refund Analogy: KRS 134.551 allows for refunds when tax certificates are declared void due to irregularity.³⁴ While this statute is specific to taxation, the underlying equitable principle—that the state should not retain funds collected through illegal acts—is a potent argument in administrative appeals.
• Litigation Route: To force a refund, a licensee would likely need to file an appeal in Franklin Circuit Court (the venue for challenging state agency actions) seeking a declaratory judgment that the order was void and a writ of mandamus compelling the refund.³²

Section VI: Unlicensed Practice vs. Permissible Assistance – A Legal Minefield

A major source of confusion—and disciplinary risk—in Kentucky salons is the delineation between tasks that require a license and those that do not. The KBC has adopted a strict interpretation of “practice,” reinforced by the introduction of the Shampoo and Style License.

6.1 The “Shampoo and Style” License (300 Hours)

Historically, many salons employed unlicensed assistants to shampoo hair. In Kentucky, this is now strictly prohibited unless the individual holds a specific Shampoo and Style license.³⁷

• Requirements: Obtaining this license requires 300 hours of instruction at a licensed school, a 12th-grade education, and passing the PSI theory and practical exams.³⁷
• Legal Presumption: The existence of this specific license creates a legal presumption that shampooing is a professional service. If a salon allows an unlicensed person (e.g., a receptionist or a student who has not yet obtained their permit) to shampoo a client, they are aiding and abetting unlicensed practice.⁴¹

6.2 Permissible Non-Licensed Duties

To remain compliant, salon owners must strictly limit unlicensed employees to non-cosmetic tasks. Based on the statutory definition of cosmetology in KRS 317A.010, permissible tasks include:

• Reception Duties: Scheduling appointments, processing payments (cashier), and client intake.³⁷
• Sanitation and Maintenance: Sweeping floors, laundering towels, cleaning mirrors, and sanitizing non-implement surfaces (waiting areas, front desk).³⁷
• Retail: Selling products, provided no professional advice or application is given that would constitute “practice” (e.g., applying makeup samples to a client).³⁷

6.3 Prohibited Acts for Unlicensed Personnel

Any act that involves touching a client for a cosmetic purpose is likely prohibited. This includes:

• Shampooing and Conditioning: (Requires Shampoo & Style License or Cosmetology License).⁴¹
• Removing Polish: Even removing nail polish is considered part of nail technology practice.
• Draping Clients: Placing a cape on a client for a chemical service may be construed as assisting in the practice.
• Mixing Chemicals: Preparing color or perm solutions is strictly professional practice.

Section VII: The “Immediate and Present Danger” Standard and Salon Closure (SB 22)

The most severe penalty the KBC can impose is the immediate closure of a business. Recent legislative changes have armed the Board with a powerful weapon in this regard: Senate Bill 22 (2025).

7.1 Strict Liability for Unlicensed Personnel

Effective June 26, 2025, KRS 317A.020(8)(b) was amended to state: “It shall be deemed an immediate and present danger to the health and safety of the public if it is documented and verified that a licensee knowingly employs or utilizes the services of an unlicensed individual”.⁴³

7.2 Mechanics of Immediate Closure

Normally, a salon is entitled to a hearing before a license is suspended. However, an “emergency order” under KRS 13B.125 allows the Board to suspend a license immediately if there is an immediate danger to the public.⁶

• The Shift: By legislatively defining the employment of an unlicensed person as an “immediate and present danger,” the General Assembly has removed the Board’s burden of proving actual harm. The mere presence of an unlicensed worker performing services justifies immediate emergency closure.
• Presumption of Guilt: Guidance suggests that if an employee flees mid-service during an inspection, they will be presumed to be an unlicensed employee, triggering the immediate danger clause.⁴⁵

7.3 Consequences of Closure

• Immediate Cessation: The salon must lock its doors and cease operations instantly.
• Post-Deprivation Hearing: The licensee is entitled to an administrative hearing after the closure to determine if the license should be reinstated.⁶
• Severe Penalties: Beyond closure, the salon faces substantial fines and the potential permanent revocation of facility and individual licenses.⁴⁴

Section VIII: Navigating the Inspection and Correction Process

Routine inspections are the primary touchpoint for regulatory enforcement. Understanding how to manage an inspection and respond to deficiencies is crucial for avoiding the escalation to formal complaints.

8.1 The Inspection Protocol

Inspectors are authorized under KRS 317A.145(3) to enter any licensed facility during reasonable hours to inspect premises and records.²

• Key Focus Areas: Inspectors look for licensure display (with photos), sanitation (wet sanitizers, clean implements), and the presence of unlicensed workers.
• Documentation: 201 KAR 12:060 requires the posting of the most recent inspection report in a conspicuous area.⁵ Hiding a failed inspection report is a separate violation.

8.2 The Correction Letter and 10-Day Cure

If violations are found that do not rise to the level of immediate danger, the inspector generally issues an inspection report noting deficiencies.

• Correction Timeline: While the general complaint response time is often cited as 10 days, specific regulations like 201 KAR 12:082 (regarding enrollment data errors) explicitly mandate a 10-day correction window.⁴⁹
• Strategic Response: Upon receiving a deficiency notice (often referred to informally as a correction letter), the licensee should:
  1. Correct the Issue Immediately: Fix the sanitation issue, update the license display, or dismiss the unauthorized worker.
  2. Submit Written Proof: Within 10 days, send a written response to the Board (via email or certified mail) with photographic evidence of the correction. This creates a paper trail of compliance that can prevent the deficiency from escalating into a formal disciplinary complaint and fine.⁵¹

Section IX: Practical Compliance Frameworks and Checklists

To assist licensees in operationalizing this legal analysis, the following tables and checklists provide quick-reference guides to compliance.

9.1 Table: Unlicensed vs. Licensed Duties Matrix

9.2 Checklist: Immediate Inspection Response

1. Staff Audit: Are all licenses (with current photos) posted at stations?
2. Unlicensed Staff: Are receptionists strictly behind the desk or performing cleaning only?
3. Sanitation: Are wet sanitizers filled and implements clean?
4. Interaction: Be polite but do not volunteer information. Answer questions directly.
5. Documentation: If a deficiency is noted, ask specifically: “Is this an immediate danger violation or a correction notice?”
6. Follow-Up: Photograph the correction immediately and email KBC within 10 days.

Conclusion

The Kentucky Board of Cosmetology operates within a defined legal box, bounded by statutes like KRS 317A and procedural safeguards like KRS Chapter 13B. However, the boundaries of this box are often tested by aggressive enforcement and licensee ignorance. The passage of SB 22 in 2025 signals a new era of zero-tolerance enforcement regarding unlicensed practice, making strict compliance an operational necessity.

Yet, licensees are not powerless. The law guarantees transparency through open records, fairness through warning requirements, and legitimacy through board ratification of orders. By understanding these procedural levers—specifically the 10-day response window, the warning mandate, and the “void order” doctrine—licensees can protect their livelihoods and hold their regulators accountable to the rule of law. The potential for voiding orders and securing refunds exists, but it requires a licensee who is not just skilled in beauty, but literate in the law.

Disclaimer: This report is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Administrative regulations and statutes are subject to change. Licensees should consult with a qualified administrative law attorney for specific legal counsel.

REFERENCES

Senate Bill 84 Votes info – https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/25rs/sb84/vote_history.pdf

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY SENATE
2025 Regular Session
SB 84 AN ACT relating to judicial review of state agency RSN# 3368
action.
2/18/2025
PASS SB 84 4:44:51 PM
YEAS: 28
NAYS: 6
PASSES: 0
NOT VOTING: 4
YEAS : 28
Boswell Girdler Mills Stivers
Carpenter Givens Nemes Storm
Carroll Higdon Nunn Tichenor
Deneen Howell Rawlings Wheeler
Douglas Madon Reed Williams
Elkins McDaniel Richardson Wilson
Funke Frommeyer Meredith Smith Wise
NAYS : 6
Berg Herron Thomas Yates
ChambersArmstrong Neal
PASSES : 0
NOT VOTING : 4
Mays Bledsoe Raque Adams Webb West
Commonwealth of Kentucky
House of Representatives
2025 Regular Session
SB 84 AN ACT relating to judicial review of state agency RCS# 205
action.
3/11/2025
Pass 3:11:29 PM
YEAS: 80
NAYS: 19
ABSTAINED: 0
NOT VOTING: 1
YEAS : 80
Baker Dossett Heavrin McCool Roberts
Banta Dotson Hodgson McPherson Rudy
Bauman Duvall Holloway Meade Sharp
Bivens Elliott Huff T Meredith Smith
Blanton Fister Imes Miles Tate
Bowling Flannery Jackson Moser Thomas
Branscum Fleming Johnson Neighbors Thompson
Bratcher S. Freeland King Nemes Tipton
Bray Fugate Koch Osborne Truett
Bridges Gooch Lawrence Payne Upchurch
Callaway Gordon Lewis Petrie Wesley
Calloway Griffee Lewis D Pollock Whitaker
Clines Grossl Lewis S Proctor White
Decker Hale Lockett Rabourn Williams
Dietz Hampton Maddox Raymer Wilson
Doan Hart Massaroni Riley Witten
NAYS : 19
Aull Camuel Hancock Moore Tackett Laferty
Bojanowski Donworth Kulkarni Roarx Watkins
Brown Gentry Lehman Stalker Willner
Burke Grossberg Marzian Stevenson P
ABSTAINED : 0
NOT VOTING : 1
Chester-Burton
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY SENATE
2025 Regular Session
SB 84 AN ACT relating to judicial review of state agency RSN# 3500
action.
3/12/2025
Final Passage SB 84 W/ hcs1 4:46:36 PM
YEAS: 32
NAYS: 6
PASSES: 0
NOT VOTING: 0
YEAS : 32
Boswell Givens Nemes Storm
Carpenter Higdon Nunn Tichenor
Carroll Howell Raque Adams Webb
Deneen Madon Rawlings West
Douglas Mays Bledsoe Reed Wheeler
Elkins McDaniel Richardson Williams
Funke Frommeyer Meredith Smith Wilson
Girdler Mills Stivers Wise
NAYS : 6
Berg Herron Thomas Yates
ChambersArmstrong Neal
PASSES : 0
NOT VOTING : 0
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY SENATE
2025 Regular Session
SB 84 AN ACT relating to judicial review of state agency RSN# 3587
action.
3/27/2025
Override Veto Final Passage SB 84 11:28:46AM
YEAS: 32
NAYS: 6
PASSES: 0
NOT VOTING: 0
YEAS : 32
Boswell Givens Nemes Storm
Carpenter Higdon Nunn Tichenor
Carroll Howell Raque Adams Webb
Deneen Madon Rawlings West
Douglas Mays Bledsoe Reed Wheeler
Elkins McDaniel Richardson Williams
Funke Frommeyer Meredith Smith Wilson
Girdler Mills Stivers Wise
NAYS : 6
Berg Herron Thomas Yates
ChambersArmstrong Neal
PASSES : 0
NOT VOTING : 0
Commonwealth of Kentucky
House of Representatives
2025 Regular Session
SB 84 AN ACT relating to judicial review of state agency RCS# 336
action.
3/27/2025
Final Passage 6:54:03 PM
YEAS: 74
NAYS: 18
ABSTAINED: 0
NOT VOTING: 8
YEAS : 74
Baker Dotson Hodgson Meade Sharp
Banta Duvall Holloway Meredith Smith
Bauman Elliott Huff T Miles Tate
Bivens Fister Imes Moser Thomas
Blanton Flannery Jackson Neighbors Thompson
Bowling Fleming Johnson Nemes Tipton
Branscum Freeland King Osborne Truett
Bratcher S. Fugate Koch Payne Upchurch
Bray Gooch Lawrence Petrie Wesley
Bridges Gordon Lewis Pollock Whitaker
Calloway Griffee Lewis S Proctor White
Clines Grossl Lockett Raymer Williams
Decker Hale Massaroni Riley Wilson
Dietz Hampton McCool Roberts Witten
Dossett Heavrin McPherson Rudy
NAYS : 18
Aull Camuel Hancock Roarx Tackett Laferty
Bojanowski Donworth Kulkarni Stalker Watkins
Brown Gentry Lehman Stevenson P Willner
Burke Grossberg Moore
ABSTAINED : 0
NOT VOTING : 8
Callaway Doan Lewis D Marzian Rabourn
Chester-Burton Hart Maddox