Disenfranchise? Both states knowingly broke the rules, and it was the elected leaders in these two states that should be blamed. In reality, it was these culpable individuals that unleashed the term "disenfranchise" from the very beginning, looking to deflect the reprimanding they deserved for their irresponsible leadership. Beyond these simple facts, political parties are private organizations and therefore cannot "disenfranchise" anyone. They have a right to decide how their nominee is chosen and are not obligated to conduct a primary or caucus anywhere. The states violated the rules and it would obviously be unfair to either candidate and their supporters to seat the delegates as currently constituted. However, since seating them as such would be beneficial to Sen. Clinton, she and her supporters have done an about-face from the original agreement that the voting in those states would be at most symbolic (although, the fact that many voters in these states were aware of the futility of their voting probably played a huge role in the outcome, not to mention the fact that all candidates agreed not to campaign in either).