Democrats are desperate to snatch back their power and stop Donald Trump.

But they aren’t waiting around for elections.

They are hatching a secret plan to rig the system in their favor and it will change America forever.

So-called “journalists” and Democrats such as Eric Holder and Barack Obama have identified “gerrymandering” as the new boogeyman.

Most states allow state legislatures to draw congressional and state house district maps.

When the GOP swept to power in the 2010 midterms, it allowed them to wrest control away from this function from Democrats.

After Democrats failed at the ballot box, they turned to their allies in the courts.

Democrats sued over Republican-drawn maps in Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin on the grounds that the maps were unfair.

In Pennsylvania, the State Supreme Court – which is chosen by voters in partisan elections and has a 5 to 2 Democrat majority – struck down the Republicans map and instituted their own.

This decision immediately moved a number of districts into play for Democrats and handed them a golden opportunity to win a good percentage of the seats necessary to flip the House of Representatives in November.

Democrats have zeroed in on this tactic because they don’t want to accept the results of the 2016 elections.

Michael Thielen – the Executive Director of the National Republican Lawyers Association – wrote in The Daily Caller about how the left is using the courts to solve political questions:

“Redistricting is, at best, a confusing area of law. The guidelines provided in past Supreme Court cases are vague and applied inconsistently by the courts. And the reasons for this are obvious. Unlike traditional “law,” which involves applying static statutes, case law, and regulations to a specific fact pattern, redistricting is an inherently political act. It is difficult for courts to assess the political judgments of a state legislature or commission and provide clear guidelines for adjudicating future political decisions.

That is why the “political question” doctrine exists. Courts will refuse to make decisions on inherently political questions, recognizing that the political process is the correct place to resolve political disputes. Courts simply are not equipped to decide political questions. For years, redistricting was considered a political question. Yet, in the past thirty years, redistricting cases and court decisions have become common.

In this term alone, the Supreme Court is considering two partisan redistricting cases, Gill v. Whitford, argued in October, and Benisek v. Lamone, scheduled for oral argument at the end of this month, and a racial redistricting case, Abbott v. Perez, scheduled for oral argument in April.”

Democrats don’t want fair maps.

And they don’t want to have to follow the normal process of winning elections.

They want unelected judges to draw districts that cement their control on power.

It’s their new scheme to rig the system in their favor.

We will keep you up to date on any new developments in this story.