The Brief

Richard Marx knows how to write a pop hit.

His first seven singles all reached the top five of the Billboard Hot 100, with hits like "Satisfied" and "Right Here Waiting." His writing credits include Luther Vandross' "Dance With My Father."

But his latest album is showcasing a different side of him.

After Hours blends Great American Songbook standards with original songs that Marx wrote in that classic style. There's also a five-song EP, After Hours: Live From the Grammy Museum, which came from his August performance there.

Marx will bring the album to the Yaamava’ Theater at Yaamava’ Resort & Casino in Highland on Sunday, Nov. 1.

From backup singer to hitmaker

Marx's journey started when he arrived in Los Angeles at 18.

"The first door opened for me kind of immediately," Marx said in an interview with LAist Morning Edition Host Austin Cross. "The first job I had right out of the gate was singing background vocals for Lionel Richie on his first solo album."

That connection allowed Marx to meet Kenny Rogers, with whom he wrote the No. 1 country song "Crazy." But it would still take years before Marx would find his own success as an artist.

"I remember when I started having success as a songwriter and singing on all these other people's hit records," Marx said. "I really thought that would be the fuel, but every record company rejected me for several years. I got rejected time and time again on songs that became massive hits. So, you have to just believe in yourself and wait for that right opportunity to come around."

Writing like it's 1948

Marx's new album is a real departure from the music that made him a star. Initially, he didn't think he was ready to record these types of songs.

"It was a delusion on my part that I wasn't old enough," Marx said. "I thought, 'I'm not old enough to sing those old standards.' Then it dawned on me that I'm 63 years old."

Marx decided not to just record American classics. He also wrote original music in that same style.

"When I realized that I could create something special in writing half the album, it all started to make sense to me," Marx said. "And I have to say that the writing of this album was the most challenging and enjoyable songwriting I think I've ever done."

The first song Marx wrote for the album was called "All I Ever Needed," which features a trumpet solo by Chris Botti.

"I pretended that I was a young, struggling songwriter in 1948, trying to get Sinatra to cut one of my songs," Marx said. "I took a long walk, and I thought whatever comes into my mind, I'm gonna go with it. An hour later, when I came back home, that whole song was written."

For another song called "Magic Hour," Marx got an assist from his wife, Daisy Fuentes.

"It's my favorite song on the album," Marx said. "The lyrics plagued me for a while. So [Fuentes] and I sat down and had a martini, and she just kept talking and telling me this story, and I turned it into lyrics."

Another highlight on After Hours is Marx's duet with Rod Stewart on the song "Young at Heart."

"Rod was just such a hero my whole life," Marx said. "We just kind of accidentally became great friends over the last four years. And in that process, it was Rod who suggested that we do a duet."

Marx is now looking for new goals.

"I'm in the process now of building my new bucket list, and there's really nothing on it so far," Marx said. "I wanna keep making music that makes me feel the way this album made me feel."

See him live

Tickets for Marx's upcoming show at the Yaamava’ Theater at Yaamava’ Resort & Casino in Highland on Sunday, Nov. 1, are available through AXS.

Actor Walter Koenig, who played Ensign Pavel Chekov, the youthful Russian navigator on the “ Star Trek ” television series and several movies, has died. He was 90.

Koenig died Monday at his home in the North Hollywood neighborhood of Los Angeles, talent agent Zachery McGinnis said in a statement.

In “Star Trek,” Ensign Chekov was the sole Communist-bloc member of the spaceship Enterprise bridge staff. His friendly, supportive presence showed how the rival nations (in the far-off future in which the show was set) were capable of working together.

Speaking heavily Russian-accented English, Chekov embodied stereotypical Russian personality traits, including fierce pride, love of poetry and blind loyalty.

“Star Trek” ran on NBC from 1966 to 1969 and has had an almost unprecedented afterlife as fans, or Trekkies, kept interest in the show alive.

“My heart is heavy,” Koenig's castmate, George Takei, said in a post on the social platform X. “Walter was more than Chekov. He was a writer, a teacher, a thoughtful man, and a loyal friend.”

“Walter’s legacy extends far beyond the screen. Through countless convention appearances and interactions with fans, he shared his kindness, wit, and appreciation with everyone fortunate enough to meet him. He understood what Star Trek meant to people and embraced the community that grew around it,” McGinnis said. “Thank you, Walter, for the memories, the inspiration, and for boldly going where few have gone before.”

McGinnis said Koenig died surrounded by his daughter and niece.

Koenig played Chekov in seven “Star Trek” movies starting in 1979, as well as innumerable other spinoffs, including writing a “Star Trek” book, “Chekov's Enterprise,” in 1980. The TV show has also inspired two spinoff TV series with new casts, and conventions that draw thousands of fans.

He returned to the science fiction genre with occasional appearances in the syndicated 1990s TV series “Babylon 5.”

For nearly a decade, California’s Yes In My Backyard activists and other pro-development advocates have wanted to overhaul California’s signature environmental law to clear the way for more housing construction.

Now Proposition 45 is on the ballot. Supporters say it would, among other things, overhaul that law, known as the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, to clear the way for — you guessed it — more housing construction.

So why are YIMBYs divided?

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, an Oakland Democrat and one of the movement's most stalwart champions in the Legislature, is for it. So is the bulk of the building industry, including many major for- and non-profit developers.

Bay Area pro-housing advocates Eastbay for Everyone and the Greenbelt Alliance, two typical allies of Wicks, are emphatically against it.

In the uncommitted middle lies the lion’s share of California YIMBYism: Abundant Housing Los Angeles, SPUR, and both California YIMBY and YIMBY Action — the movement’s two flagship advocacy organizations — have all taken neutral positions.

“It’s been a weird campaign so far,” said Ali Sapirman, advocacy manager at the Housing Action Coalition, an urban building industry group that supports the measure. “The housing community has been a little bit fractured.”

Those fissures aren't over whether more homes should be built across California. Instead, it mostly boils down to a question of where.

“The central question here is how you feel about sprawl,” Max Dubler of California YIMBY wrote in the group’s non-endorsement statement, referring to low-density housing development at the edge of metro areas. Though some exurban growth “will necessarily be part of solving our housing shortage,” he expressed concern about making it easier to build “car-dependent sprawl housing and the freeways and water infrastructure necessary to serve that sprawl.”

To sprawl or not to sprawl

For nearly a decade, the Legislature has been on a tear, passing “streamlining” bills aimed at speeding up the regulatory approval of new construction. Almost all of those laws have only applied to projects in places where homes and other infrastructure already exist.

Prioritizing so-called infill development helped wrangle together a coalition of developers and construction labor unions, but also a diverse swath of Democratic-leaning advocates whose interest in seeing more apartments and condos goes beyond the cause of affordability alone. That includes climate activists who want to see less commuter car traffic; transit, bicycle and pedestrian advocates who want more riders and walkers and urbanists who want Los Angeles to more closely resemble Barcelona.

In breaking from that urban focus, Prop. 45 is driving a wedge inside that coalition.

If passed, the measure would speed up the review process required under CEQA (pronounced “see-kwah”) for all types of housing projects. That includes transit-adjacent downtown condo towers, but also freshly paved subdivisions at the metropolitan fringe.

The measure is “a doubling down on essentially 75 years of land-use patterns that we know haven't worked,” said Jordan Grimes, legislative director with Greenbelt Alliance, which opposes the measure. “It's a return to the sprawl era.”

Not everyone in the movement necessarily sees that as a bad thing. Among those who want California to build its way out of its current housing shortage, opinions differ over whether more environmentally-friendly infill development alone is up to the task.

“I'm an ‘all of the above’ person when it comes to housing,” said Wicks, explaining her support of the measure. “I think we need housing of all different types, shapes, and sizes.”

An earlier version of this rift first emerged earlier this decade when a handful of Bay Area tech investors announced plans to build a brand new city on Solano County farmland in 2023 under the banner of California Forever. Some YIMBY commentators applauded the plan as a welcome injection of much-needed supply. Others decried it as sprawl dressed in urbanist clothing.

With Prop. 45, that regional debate is now playing out at a statewide scale.

Housing front and center 

Prop. 45 is about much more than housing policy.

CEQA requires public agencies to review the possible environmental consequences of the decisions they make, including the permitting of private projects. For decades industry groups, developers and, more recently, housing supply boosters have said the law makes it too easy for project opponents to jam up worthwhile projects by repeatedly demanding additional analysis.

“The clock is endless and the number of people and entities who can challenge you are also endless,” said Linda Mandolini of Eden Housing, an affordable housing developer.

Prop. 45 would not exempt any projects from environmental review outright. But for projects deemed "essential," it would narrow the focus of these reviews and require them to wrap up within 365 business days. Any resulting litigation would also face a shot clock; Judges would have 270 business days to resolve them. Such lawsuits would also be made harder to sustain in court. Aside from housing, essential projects include roads, hospitals, schools, clean energy projects, water and broadband infrastructure.

But housing has loomed large in the electoral debate. The Yes on 45 campaign has touted the support of affordable housing developers and housing advocates, while pointing to housing affordability concerns as the initial impetus for the measure.

It’s easy to see why. Environmental challenges to often innocuous-seeming housing projects have regularly generated headlines for years, helping to cement the idea among lawmakers and many voters that CEQA is a major cause of the state’s housing woes.

Environmental justice groups and their allies have spent years fighting against that argument in the Legislature. Though Prop. 45 does not exempt “essential” projects from environmental review outright — it just shortens and hems in the process — these groups have now lined up to oppose it for much the same reason: They reject the premise that CEQA needs fixing.

But for opponents like Grimes, who supported many recent streamlining bills, the argument that the law is holding up desperately needed residential construction is a year out of date. Last year, the governor signed Assembly Bill 130, a Wicks-authored measure that exempted most infill housing from the CEQA.

Since becoming law in July 2025, developers have used it to entitle 17,913 units of housing, according to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, a state agency.

“When you look at what’s left to do on urban housing, there are absolutely still barriers,” said Grimes, whose organization applauded last year’s exemption. “CEQA just isn't one of them.”

The task of the No on 45 campaign, he said, is to convince enough voters that “we’ve actually solved this problem.”

Are we done here?

Many developers and affordable housing advocates, even those working in urban areas, dispute that CEQA is no longer a major obstacle.

Last year’s exemption does not exempt projects larger than 20 acres, which means supersized urban redevelopment projects are still subject to the old process.

Prop. 45 also applies shot clocks to other permits issued later in the development process and which regularly slow a project more than environmental review.

And while state laws like last year’s infill carveout may grant certain developers the right to ignore CEQA, there is nothing to stop a deep-pocketed opponent from suing anyway. Putting time limits on those lawsuits could be the difference between a project succeeding and being delayed to death, said Mandolini.

She points to the planned 130-unit affordable housing project that Eden Housing has been trying to and failing to build in the Bay Area suburb of Livermore since 2018 as an example. In 2021, a nonprofit funded by a handful of well-heeled Livermore residents sued the city, arguing that it hadn’t done enough environmental analysis on a housing development that would be built on a former grocery store parking lot behind a row of downtown restaurants. A lower court ruled that the group’s CEQA arguments were “almost utterly without merit.” An appellate court agreed. The state Supreme Court allowed that ruling to stand.

But by then two years had passed.

“Every year you lose in litigation is real money for real projects and another year that 130 families don't get to live in that housing,” said Mandolini. “It’s a great way to kill a project.”

Even an infill project.

But among some pro-housing supporters of the proposition, the infill versus sprawl debate isn’t much of a debate at all.

“We’re not an urbanist organization,” said Mahdi Manji with the Inner City Law Center, a legal aid provider and housing advocacy group in Los Angeles’ Skid Row. The group supports Prop. 45 and doesn’t mind the concept of more housing far from the city’s core. “To the extent it results in housing that is a little more affordable in Lancaster and Palmdale, a lot of our clients live out in Lancaster and Palmdale.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Gen Z could be poised to paint California a deeper shade of blue this November — if they turn out to vote.

An age gap exists across the top issues on California's ballot this November: youth overwhelmingly favor taxing billionaires and not requiring IDs to vote, while seniors would prefer to block new taxes and impose voter ID requirements. Gen Z voters are also opting for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate – albeit reluctantly. That's all according to a September report from the Public Policy Institute of California, a nonpartisan research organization.

CalMatters spoke with DemocratIc and Republican voters age 18 to 29 about their attitudes toward California's gubernatorial race and top election measures. Gen Z support for Xavier Becerra, the Democratic pick for governor, is lukewarm, but that same cohort generally seems eager to vote against his opponent and billionaires this fall.

Nonetheless, young people face an uphill battle when it comes to shifting the balance of power. They make up 30% of the state’s adult population but only 21% of its likely voters; adults age 55 and older, meanwhile, represent 36% of Californian adults but nearly 50% of expected voters, according to the research organization.

”We're not used to seeing representation that takes into account our needs and our struggles,” said Athena Burciaga, 25, a computer science student at Cal State Monterey Bay. She's also co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America’s Central Coast chapter and a candidate for city council in the neighboring town of Marina. “So I do empathize with the sentiment that, like, ‘Why give a damn about politics if politics doesn't care about me?’”

The wide gap over the billionaire tax

Proposition 40, dubbed “the billionaire tax,” represents one of the sharpest political contrasts between generations in California.

Young voters are arguably a key bloc for the proposition's passing since slim majorities of likely voters overall back not just the wealth tax, but also its countermeasures, Proposition 41 and 42. Young adults plan to vote overwhelmingly in favor of the measure with around 76% in support, as opposed to 36% of voters age 55 and over that plan to do the same, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. Middle-aged voters, meanwhile, have been generally supportive, with about 59% backing the measure.

To Stanley Shi, a 19-year-old student at UC Irvine, the reasoning behind that generational split is clear.

“I think it's pretty obvious that older people tend to own property or tend to be wealthier than Gen Z,” said Shi. “Meanwhile, I own nothing… So I'm obviously going to be in favor of a tax that will never threaten to touch me.”

Federal Reserve data indicates that the share of wealth held by the nation’s oldest residents has roughly doubled in the last 37 years, while that of its youngest has been reduced by half.

According to Burciaga, Gen Z is well aware of their declining economic prospects. She said that may be why youth political organizations on both sides of the aisle have recently seen explosive growth.

The Young Democratic Socialists of America has grown by over 50% nationwide in the last year, bringing it to the highest membership levels of its 50-year history.

Meanwhile, Turning Point USA – among the nation’s dominant conservative youth organizations – has also grown tremendously, particularly since the assassination of its founder, Charlie Kirk, last year.

A voter fills out their ballot for the primary election at Sacramento City College on June 2, 2026.

(

Miguel Gutierrez Jr.

/

CalMatters

)

While Turning Point did not respond to recent requests for comment, previous CalMatters reporting found that the organization had seen its presence on California campuses nearly triple as of March, with 78 of the state’s 119 active college chapters founded after Kirk’s death.

“Young people these days are a lot more class conscious overall, wherever they fall on the political spectrum,” said Burciaga. “Our generation is a lot more hip and aware of what's going on right now than previously because of the material conditions under which we live.”

Young voters lack enthusiasm for Becerra

In the governor's race, the wide lead enjoyed by Democrat Xavier Becerra over his Republican rival Steve Hilton is no surprise due to California’s party demographics. But perceived instability and disillusionment with the Democratic party has left some young voters lacking confidence in Becerra, interviews show.

A September Politico poll surveying 2,418 registered voters in California, including 174 Gen Z voters, showed that only 34% of those Gen Z voters found Becerra favorable while 39% found him unfavorable. Yet, a much higher percentage of them, 57%, found Hilton unfavorable.

“I don't like that he seems to have positioned himself more in the center on some issues,” said Shi about Becerra. “I don't hate centrism… But I've heard that rhetoric for so long and it hasn't resulted in a lot of the political results that I want.”

Carla Fuentes, 28, president of the Los Angeles County Young Democrats and a graduate of Cal State Northridge, said that the abundance of Democratic candidates running for governor in the primary gave the impression to younger voters that the party lacks cohesion and a clear vision.

“Becerra is the natural choice, and we're excited to endorse him and support him in his endeavors, but I do wish that there was a little bit more thought put behind it,” Fuentes said.

Cole Marting, executive director of the San Diego Young Republicans, believes that Hilton has the solutions necessary to alleviate one of the most pressing issues for young people: affordability.

“He's really the one that's saying fees and CEQA and energy rules need to be reformed… Maybe that's some of the reason that a 28-year-old today can't afford a starter home,” said Marting, 29. “At the end of the day, Hilton is the affordability vote.”

In an interview with CalMatters, Becerra made an appeal to young voters by saying he will pursue policies to support first-time homeownership, tackle inflation and make healthcare more affordable.

“We have to stop the nonsense, the chaos in Washington D.C., so we can make life more affordable here at home,” Becerra said. “I want you to become a homeowner, I want you to develop wealth because that's what drives the economy of the state of California.”

CalMatters similarly asked Hilton for his plan for youth, which he said is focused on jobs, affordability, $3-per-gallon gas and housing.

“[California] should be the home of energy and innovation and entrepreneurialism and business and jobs,” said Hilton. “We're going to make California the best place in America to start and run a business by getting rid of the regulations that are now driving businesses to other states like Texas.”

Gen Z voters are largely against Voter ID

Proposition 39, which would require citizens to present government-issued identification to vote, has been championed by its proponents as a “common-sense constitutional amendment.”

The aim of the proposition has been to target alleged election fraud in California, a suspicion largely held among MAGA voters. Efforts to reign in alleged fraud in the state have yet to produce any evidence — and in one case was deemed unlawful.

Earlier this week, federal prosecutors charged 28 immigrants with illegally voting or registering to vote in California. California Attorney General Rob Bonta told reporters 28 registered voters out of 23 million is a “drop in the bucket” and shows no widespread fraud.

Only 27% of likely voters age 18 to 29 support Prop. 39, as opposed to 46% of voters age 50 to 64, according to the polling conducted by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.

Fuentes, who is also a board member of the League of Women Voters, takes this sentiment even further by stating that Prop. 39 is a “huge misstep” that will deter voter participation by disproportionately making it more difficult for certain groups who lack the ability to obtain proper identification. The league asserts that such measures negatively impact voter turnout among people of color, low-income voters, Native American communities, students, and particularly women going through name changes and divorces.

Students wait in line to vote on Proposition 50 at the Price Center at UC San Diego on Nov. 4, 2025.

(

Ariana Drehsler

/

CalMatters

)

“I think the idea, the fundamental concept that voting is kind of sacred and voting should be protected, is right. Do I think that this is the way to accomplish that? No,” Fuentes said.

Jake Krepps, 21, a junior at San Diego State University and president of the campus chapter of College Republicans, said he has no idea if the proposition will pass, but that he and those he knows support it.

“I think it's really important to have a good security net to ensure that people who vote ... for representatives that are going to represent the American people, that they are themselves American people,” said Krepps.

As many voter ID proponents mention, Krepps said, “you have an ID to drive, you need an ID to fly somewhere. So I think it's critically important that you have an ID to vote as well.”

Despite his support for the Republican-backed measure, Krepps feels that the majority of the political landscape is deeply flawed and ineffective. When asked how he felt the current state government was serving young voters, he led with one word: “Terrible.”

“Being a legislator and elected official in California is a two-edged sword. You have to address issues and you have to pass policy to accommodate those issues,” Krepps said. “You also need to prove to voters that the policies and the legislation that you're passing is actually effective … I don't think the state of California has successfully fulfilled either [of those] issues.”

Dylan Arreola and Tom Nolan are contributors with the College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. CalMatters higher education coverage is supported by a grant from the College Futures Foundation.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.