# Judge, Appellate Court of Maryland At Large: Dan Friedman (retention, Yes or No for continuance in office)

**In one sentence:** This court reviews appeals of lower-court decisions; choose one answer, Yes or No, on whether Friedman stays in office—not between competing candidates. [1][2]

## The candidates

### Dan Friedman
- **Background:** An at-large appellate judge since September 2014, Friedman earned his law degree from the University of Maryland in 1994. [3]
- **Top stated priorities:** Not found in sources checked.
- **Record or experience relevant to this office:** He served as Baltimore’s chief of litigation from 2000–2002 and as an assistant attorney general advising Maryland’s legislature from 2008–2014. His official biography lists him as chair of the judiciary’s Equal Justice Committee’s Rules Review Subcommittee since 2020. [3]

## Where they differ

- **The choices, not two candidates:** Yes approves another ten-year term, subject to mandatory retirement at age 70; No rejects retention. If retention is rejected—or the vote ties—the seat becomes vacant ten days after election results are certified. [2]
- **Strongest case for Yes — A possible argument:** Keeping Friedman preserves experience on this court dating to 2014, plus earlier work in government law and litigation. Experience alone does not establish the quality of his decisions. [3]
- **Strongest case for No — A possible argument:** Retention gives voters a way to withhold approval when they are not satisfied with a judge’s record. Rejection starts a replacement process: the governor appoints a new judge with state Senate consent; voters do not choose that replacement on this ballot. This is a general accountability argument, not evidence of misconduct by Friedman. [2]

## If you care most about...

- **Experience and continuity** -> Friedman has served on this court since 2014; a possible reason for Yes is keeping that experience. [3]
- **Fair treatment in court** -> His biography lists leadership in reviewing court rules through the Equal Justice Committee; that role alone does not show what changes resulted. [3]
- **Voter oversight** -> No is the way to reject his continued service; a possible reason is dissatisfaction with his record, but specific, sourced arguments against his retention were not found in sources checked. [2]
- **Who selects the next judge** -> Yes retains Friedman; rejection leads to appointment by the governor with Senate consent, not election of a competing candidate. [2]

## What we could not verify

Friedman’s 2026 campaign priorities, questionnaire responses, named endorsements, organized opposition, and an independent assessment of his overall judicial performance: **Not found in sources checked**.

The official candidate list identifies him under this office as “Judicial”; this is a nonpartisan retention decision, not a party contest. [2][4]

## Confidence

**Medium.** Official sources establish his background and the retention rules, but do not provide a verified campaign platform or an independent performance assessment. [1][2][3][4]

## Sources

1. [1] Welcome to the Appellate Court of Maryland - Maryland Judiciary - https://www.mdcourts.gov/acm
2. [2] Maryland Constitution, Article IV, §5A - Maryland State Archives - https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/04art4.html
3. [3] Daniel A. (Dan) Friedman - Maryland State Archives - https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/30sp/html/msa16938.html
4. [4] 2026 Gubernatorial General Election State Candidates List - Maryland State Board of Elections - https://elections.maryland.gov/elections/2026/General_candidates/2026_GG_statewide_candidatelist.html