Curtains could fall for some interior designers

Bills introduced in the Michigan House in September would require interior designers to be licensed to work. House Bill 5960, introduced by Rep. Carol Glanville, D-Walker, would also impose continuing education requirements on designers.

Interior designers had to register with the state until 2014, a requirement which included passing a qualification exam proctored by the Council for Interior Design Qualification. The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs administered the registry under Section 601a of the Occupation Code. State and local government agencies were authorized to review the list.

In 2013, then-Rep. Andrea LaFontaine, R-Richmond, sponsored legislation to repeal the registration requirement. It passed with overwhelming support in both chambers of the Legislature before being signed into law by then-Gov. Rick Snyder.

Glanville’s legislation, introduced Sept. 26, would impose a greater burden than simply reinstating a registration requirement. HB 5960 calls for an interior design board to provide oversight and ensure adherence to licensing rules. It also calls for a regime to require continuing education credits for practitioners. The bill is tie-barred with two other pieces of legislation, HB 5961 and HB 5962.

Glanville did not respond to a request for comment. The bill was referred to the Committee on Regulatory Reform. If passed by both chambers and signed into law, the law would go into effect Jan. 1, 2026, and anyone working as an interior designer would need to submit, within four years, documentation of having complied with all its requirements. A licensed individual would need to complete at least 12 hours of continuing education credits annually to be granted a license renewal.

Some legislators attempted to license and regulate the interior design industry in 2009 through Senate bills 974 to 976. Jack McHugh, a Mackinac Center analyst at the time, wrote that the bills would “impose licensure and regulation on interior designers, with annual license fees, at least six years of education and/or professional experience prerequisites, testing requirements to standards established by a board of incumbent designers, and more.”

McHugh called the bills anti-competitive and an example of rent-seeking, an activity by which existing business interests use government power to prevent newcomers from entering the industry.

The bills never left the Senate Committee on Commerce and Tourism, though the state did form a registry, and interior designers were required to submit their information to the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs until 2014.

Michigan Capitol Confidential reported in 2023 on a conference for occupational license reform. Attendees who opposed heavy regulation said licensing laws create barriers to entry, which result in increased consumer costs and a shortage of industry employees.

The American Society of Interior Designers supports licensing interior designers, according to Lauren Earley, Esq., the group’s affiliate and associate director of government and public affairs.

“Establishing legislation and regulation of interior design that honors the pursuit of the educational, experiential, and examination-based knowledge needed to obtain licensure incentivizes students and young professionals to stay in or come to Michigan for work, adding to and diversifying Michigan's overall economy,” Earley told CapCon in an email. “Surrounding states, including Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa have passed legislation in recent years that could draw students and young professionals to neighboring workforces; this legislation keeps Michigan's economy competitive within the region.”

Its website states:

“The ASID legislative policy supports legislation that provides a path for interior designers to become certified, registered or licensed while not limiting, restricting or preventing the practice of interior design.”

The Council for Interior Design Accreditation, based in Grand Rapids, did not take a position on the bill.

(Editor's note: This article has been updated to add ASID’s comment and the CIDA’s position on the bill.)